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 01:24 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20010115 Spanish Surname or Origin: If Asians, Blacks and Whites with non-Spanish surnames are born in a Spanish country, is this field coded to Spanish or non-Spanish? See discussion. For example, how do we code Miyako Mitsubishi with race listed as Japanese who was born in Peru or Sylvia Shapiro with race listed as White who was born in Argentina? For both cases, code the Spanish Surname or Origin field to 0 [Non-Spanish/Non-Hispanic]. Persons with non-Spanish surnames would not be coded as being Spanish solely because they are born in a Spanish country. Do not code Spanish ethnicity based only on birthplace. Place of birth is a separate data item and it can be used in data analysis to identify this particular group of people. 2001
20010104 Date of Diagnosis--Lung: Based on Note 7 in the lung EOD, should the Date of Diagnosis field be coded to an earlier CT scan date with a reported diagnosis of "RUL mass with mediastinal lymphadenopathy" or to the later biopsy date with a reported diagnosis of small cell carcinoma? See discussion. Note 7 states that "mediastinal lymphadenopathy" indicates involved lymph nodes for lung primaries. Should the date of diagnosis be back-dated to the date of the scan?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

No, code the Date of Diagnosis field to the later biopsy date. Note 7 is intended for use in coding the EOD-Extension field, not the Date of Diagnosis field. The earlier scan has a diagnosis of RUL "mass" not a "malignancy" so the fact that there is mediastinal lymphadenopathy mentioned in that scan is not used to help determine date of diagnosis.

 2001
20010145 EOD-Extension: There is a one to many relationship between T values in TNM staging and SEER EOD-Extension values (one T value can be coded to many extension values). For most situations, we can typically code EOD-Extension to the lowest value in the range available for that T value per the SEER guidelines. But, what happens if another tumor feature, such as tumor size, was involved in the assignment of a T value? See discussion. Example: Physician stages lung tumor as T2. The lowest extension code, 20, doesn't precisely fit the guidelines for a T2 tumor because the T2 stage may be based on the size of the tumor, which doesn't have anything to do with the EOD-Extension field. Should EOD-Extension be coded to 30 rather than 20?

The criteria for AJCC stage T2 consists of both size and tumor extension values. Size of tumor is recorded in the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field. If you determine that size is the physician's sole criteria for assigning a T2 value, code an EOD-Extension value that reflects more specific information than 30 [localized, NOS]. Code to 10 or 25, depending on the case.

If the tumor size is not provided, and there is only a clinician statement that describes the lung tumor as a stage T2, code EOD-Extension to 20, the numerically lowest equivalent EOD-Extension code for the lung T2 category.

 2001
20010044

Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology/Date of Diagnosis: If a "suspicious" cytology is reportable only when a later positive biopsy or a physician's clinical impression of cancer supports the cytology findings, is the Date of Diagnosis field coded to the later confirmation date rather than to the date of the suspicious cytology? Is a suspicious "biopsy" handled the same way?

Cytology reported as "suspicious" is not reportable. If the physician confirms the suspicious cytology by making a clinical diagnosis of malignancy, the Date of Diagnosis field is coded to the date of the clinical diagnosis, which may or may not be same date the cytology was performed.

Without supporting clinical documentation, the case will remain non-reportable and will not be submitted to SEER. The supporting documentation can be a physician's statement that the patient has cancer, a scan or procedure that identifies cancer, or a positive biopsy.

Suspicious "biopsies" are reportable according to SEER's list of ambiguous terms. Suspicious "cytologies" without supporting clinical statements are not.

 2001
20010029 Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: Can "Fuhrman nuclear grade" be coded if it is the only grade given for a kidney primary, or is breast the only site for which we can use a nuclear grade in coding the Grade, Differentiation field? See discussion.

Our pathologist consultant disagrees with coding nuclear grade for any site because it is only a component of the grade, in most cases, and is not adequate to use by itself.

If the Fuhrman nuclear grade system can be used by coders, will a conversion table for the system be added to the coding documentation by SEER in the future?

 For cases diagnosed 2004 and later: Fuhrman grade can be used to code the Grade, Differentiation field. 2001
20010046 Histology (Pre-2007)/EOD-Lymph Nodes/SEER Summary Stage 2000--Breast: What codes are used to represent these fields for a breast case with a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ and a positive regional lymph node?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8500/3 [Infiltrating duct carcinoma, NOS]. Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 6 [Axillary/regional lymph nodes, NOS] and the SEER Summary Stage 2000 field to 3 [Ipsilateral regional lymph nodes(s) involved only].

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.

 2001
20010162 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Should the code 001 in tumor size be used for tumors described as having "focal" involvement? See discussion.

Is tumor size coded to 001 for the following examples:

Example 1: Focal adenoca in left lobe on prostatectomy.

Example 2: Multifocal ductal carcinoma of breast on mastectomy.

Example 1 and 2: There is insufficient information in the examples to determine whether EOD-Size of Primary Tumor should be coded to 001.

The instructions are that code 001 is used for a microscopic focus or foci of tumor only. That means that the tumor is small enough that it could not be seen by the naked eye, nor would it be palpable. Be careful with the term "focal" because it is most often used to describe tumor cells grouped or concentrated in one area as in example 1. There is no implication that this focus was microscopic only. Was it mentioned in the gross or macroscopic portion of the pathology report? If so, it is not coded to 001. Was it palpable? If so, it is not coded to 001.

Example 2 cites a multifocal breast cancer. Again, did the pathologist visualize the cancer (was it reported on the gross or macroscopic portion of the pathology?) If so, do not use code 001. Was the lesion palpable? If so, do not use code 001.

 2001
20010002 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: How do you code tumor size for lesions described as "at least 2 cm"? See discussion. The expression "at least 2 cm" seems to be different from "greater than 2 cm." Stating "at least" seems to indicate that if the tumor is larger than 2 cm, it is difficult to ascertain the exact tumor size. Should we accept 2 cm as the best info we have, or default to 999 because of the lack of specificity?

For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 020 [2 cm], using the rule "code what you know."

 2001
20010027 Histology (Pre-2007)--Prostate: What code is used to represent the histology "adenocarcinoma, cribriform type"?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8201/3 [cribriform carcinoma]. The word "type" is a term that indicates majority of the tumor. The term "cribriform" would be a term used to determine the histology code.

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.

 2001
20010158 EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: Does capsular invasion (code 32) take priority over apex extension (code 34) on prostate primaries? See discussion. On prostatectomy, adenocarcinoma involves left apex and also left mid lobe where it focally invades capsule. Do we code extension to 34 - the highest numerical code, or to 32 to capture the capsular invasion? Do codes 33 and 34 represent a subset of code 31, and would code 32 represent greater tumor involvement?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Pathologic Extension field to 32 [Invasion into (but not beyond)prostatic capsule] when there is both capsular and apex invasion of the prostate.

Although numerically lower, code 32 takes precedence over codes 33 [arising in the apex] and 34 [extending to the apex]. Codes 33 and 34 are "subsets" of code 31 [Into prostatic apex/arising in prostatic apex].

 2001