System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 05/24/2026 13:39 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021201 EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent this field for a lymphoma with retroperitoneal lymph node involvement and splenomegaly?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Per AJCC, code spleen involvement which is demonstrated by:

1. Unequivocal palpable splenomegaly alone.

2. Equivocal palpable splenomegaly with radiologic confirmation (ultrasound or CT).

3. Enlargement or multiple focal defects that are neither cystic nor vascular (radiologic enlargement alone is inadequate).

If the spleen is proven to be involved, code extension for this case as 20 [Involvement of two or more lymph node regions on the same side of the diaphragm; Stage II].

If the spleen is not proven to be involved, code extension as 10 [Involvement of a single lymph node region; Stage I].

 2002
20021010

Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology adenocarcinoma with "areas of" papillary architecture and "foci of" squamous differentiation? Even though "areas of" and "foci" are non-majority terms, should histology be coded to the combination code of adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes [8255/3]?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to the majority of the tumor, which is 8140/3 [adenocarcinoma, NOS]. The terms "areas of" and "foci of" should be ignored because they are not terms that reflect the majority of the tumor. Therefore, we cannot use rule A on page 2 of Coding Complex Morphologic Diagnoses because this diagnosis does not represent a complex morphology.

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2002
20021144 EOD-Extension--Colon: What code is used to represent this field for a mid-ascending colon primary that invades through muscularis propria and into subserosal fibroadipose tissue that also presents with a "separate serosal nodule" of carcinoma within cecum that is consistent with a tumor implant (cT3, N0, M1)?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [Metastasis], because the nodule of carcinoma in the cecum is not contiguous with the mid-ascending primary colon tumor.

 2002
20020024 Reportability--Cervix: The SEER Program Code Manual lists CIN III and carcinoma in situ of the cervix as not being reportable for cases diagnosed in 1996 or later, but does not list "adenocarcinoma in situ" or "squamous cell carcinoma in situ." Are these histologies still reportable?

For primary site cervix uteri, only histologies with behavior codes of 3 [invasive] are reportable to SEER for all registries.

Some SEER registries have opted to continue to collect behavior codes of 2 [in situ] for cervix uteri primaries.

 2002
20021101 Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: How do we code these fields for a tumor that is predominantly a "well differentiated liposarcoma" [8851/31] that has a less predominent type of "dedifferentiated liposarcoma" [8858/33]? If we code the predominant cell type [8851/3] and the worst grade [3], the case will not pass edits because well-differentiated liposarcoma requires a differentiation code of 1. See discussion. Example: Dedifferentiated liposarcoma, with the following features: size 22 cm, FNCLCC grade 3 of 3 [high grade]. Path comment: The tumor consists of predominantly well-differentiated sclerosing subtype liposarcoma and areas of high grade spindle cell (non-lipogenic) sarcoma. The area of high grade spindle cell sarcoma measured up to 7.5 cm.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8858/33 [Dedifferentiated liposarcoma, grade 3]. The pathologist gives a final designation of Dedifferentiated liposarcoma and then provides further details in the comment that do not negate the final designation.

Grade is usually coded independent of the cell type. There are a few Catch-22 situations, like this one, in which the grade is built into the name of the cell type.

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2002
20021002 Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology "ductal carcinoma in situ with comedo necrosis"? See discussion.

SEER distributed breast questions to the Advisory Group made up of pathologists from different SEER regions. One question dealt with the terms comedo type, comedo necrosis and comedocarcinoma. Per the Advisory Group, "Do not code comedo necrosis. These three phrases each represent a different level of diagnosis and can't be compared. "Comedocarcinoma" is an established diagnosis of in situ carcinoma and should be coded as such. "Comedo type" refers to a type of intraductal cancer; whether it is considered to be a true diagnosis is probably still equivocal. "Comedo necrosis" refers to a description of cellular pathological events that occasionally occur within an intraductal tumor of comedo type, which should not be coded at all."

Per the SEER preferred answer: Comedo type = comedocarcinoma. Ignore comedo necrosis.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8500/2 [ductal carcinoma in situ].

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2002
20021030 Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: Why was the decision made not to code all "3-component differentiation systems" the same way that Bloom-Richardson is coded? For example, SEER codes a low grade BR to 1 for the Differentiation field and a low grade for other grading systems to 2. See discussion. Our Pathologist Consultant agrees with SEER's guideline to code the Bloom-Richardson and B&R modifications of low, intermediate and high to 1, 2 and 3 respectively and thinks all 3-component systems should be coded that same way because it better represents the differentiation of the tumor. In his opinion, coding all other 3-component systems to a differentiation of 2, 3 and 4 respectively, is overstating the degree of differentiation. The rules for coding histology are approved and used by all of the major standard setters through agreements reached in the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee. This issue is under review by our medical advisors and a special committee. Changes will be taken to the Uniform Data Standards Committee for review and approval. 2002
20021105 Grade, Differentiation: Do we code to the highest grade even when no grade is given at the time of initial diagnosis, but a grade is obtained on tissue removed after non-surgical treatment has occurred? See discussion.

1. In 2000 a pleural fluid aspirate had no grade. Pt treated with chemo. In 2000 a BSO diagnosed high grade papillary serous adenocarcinoma of the ovary.

2. In 1993 a prostate bx had no grade. Pt treated. In 2001 prostate bx revealed a Gleason's 4+3.

Code the grade at the time of initial diagnosis (if the specimen is from the primary site) or to the grade identified as part of a first course of cancer-directed surgery to the primary site. When different grades are specified for tissue pathologically reviewed from the primary site before and after treatment, code the higher grade. This is true even if the higher grade is obtained while the pt is still undergoing first course of cancer-directed therapy.

1. Code the Grade to 4 [high grade], if the grade information from the BSO specimen represents the grade associated with primary site surgical specimen. Even though the grade was obtained after first course of cancer-directed therapy started, it was obtained during first course of cancer-directed therapy.

2. Code the Grade to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable]. Grade was obtained well after the first course of cancer-directed therapy ended.

 2002
20021047 Surgery of Primary Site--Bladder: Do we code "random bladder biopsies" as an excisional biopsy (27) or as no cancer directed surgery (00) even if the only involvement mentioned on the pathology reports is "focal carcinoma in situ"? Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 00 [None; no surgery of primary site] when only random biopsy procedures are performed on the bladder. 2002
20021165 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--All Sites: Is there a hierarchy for using information from clinical tests (scans, radiography) to determine clinical tumor size? When the size on a radiographic report prior to pathologic diagnosis is smaller than the size of the tumor on the radiographic report that is post pathologic diagnosis, which tumor size should be used? See discussion.

Which size should be used for these examples?

1) Tumor size on a mammogram is smaller than the tumor size on an ultrasound.

2) CT of the lung reveals a 2.5 cm RUL malignancy in June. A biopsy in July confirms a malignancy. A CT is done in August prior to initiating RT which reveals a 3.1 cm RUL nodule.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Generally, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to the largest size identified in any scan. Use the largest tumor size for most cases. There is no hierarchy for multiple imaging studies, with the exception of the two situations represented in the question examples.

1). Code the size stated on the mammogram, even if that size is smaller than the one specified on the ultrasound. Generally the mammogram size is more accurate for breast cases than ultrasound.

2). Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 2.5 cm. In this example, the second scan was the same type as the first. Usually there is not that much of a difference in size between the same tests, unless the tumor has an aggressive histology. The example does not mention the histology. With certain histologies, such as small cell of the lung, a rapid growth in a short amount of time is the normal process. The fact that the size increased that much in a short period of time, using the same type of scan, is an indication of a rapidly growing tumor. It would be better to use the size on the initial scan to code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor.

 2002