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: 02/10/2026 10:56 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021187

Reportability: When a hospital pathologist sends the slides from an original biopsy to two or more outside reviewers and the reviewers differ on whether or not the case is reportable, is the case SEER reportable? Does the decision to treat the patient have any bearing on whether the case would be reportable?

Typically, the final diagnosis of the reviewing pathologist is the one used to determine whether the case is SEER reportable. If two or more reviewing pathologists disagree as to whether the case should be reportable, determine reportability based on the following priority order:

1) If the patient is treated for cancer, the case is reportable.

2) If the patient is not treated for cancer, use the amended diagnosis on the original pathology report if the hospital pathologist used the reviewing pathologists' opinions in establishing his new diagnosis.

3) If there is not an amended diagnosis for the original hospital pathology report, use the clinician's opinion regarding what the diagnosis is to determine whether the case is reportable.

 2002
20021091

Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Are the terms "thrombocytosis, NOS" and "thrombocythemia, NOS" non-reportable to SEER? See discussion.

Our understanding from SEER about how to classify these types of clinical impressions for the 2001 and later reportable blood diseases is as follows: If we cannot prove that it is malignant, then we should be conservative and exclude the case for reporting to SEER.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:The terms "thrombocytosis, NOS" and "thrombocythemia, NOS" are not reportable to SEER.

For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.

 2002
20020066 Chemotherapy: How is treatment with Iressa (Gefitinib) coded?

Code treatment with Iressa as chemotherapy.

Iressa is an epidermal growth factor inhibitor. While it doesn't kill cells directly, it damages the cell reproduction process. We classify it as a chemotherapy agent.

 2002
20021139 Date of Diagnosis/EOD-Extension--Placenta: How do you code these fields for a patient who presents with a vaginal metastatic lesion for a placenta primary? Should EOD-Extension be coded to 60 [Other genital structures NOS: vagina, ovary, broad ligament, fallopian tube] or 85 [metastasis other than lung]? See discussion. Pt had D&C Feb 5 with features of complete mole. On March 7, pt seen for a mass just inferior to the urethral meatus. At path, vaginal introitus fragments were consistent with choriocarcinoma. At time of March 23 admit for chemo, history is given as large hydatidiform mole evacuated Feb 5. Her beta hCG titers initially fell but approximately one month later hCG titers rose. At that time, she had an obvious vaginal metastatic lesion. For cases diagnosed 1998 or after: Code the Date of Diagnosis field to March 7, which is the date that the choriocarcinoma was first diagnosed. There was no slide review or clinical statement that the first occurrence was obviously malignant. Therefore, the vaginal mets is not progression and is codeable as extension. Code the EOD-Extension field to 60 [other genital structures, NOS] according to the current EOD scheme for placenta. Even though the mass is discontinuous, it is still included in code 60 per the guidelines of the FIGO system on which the EOD is based. 2002
20021018 First Course Treatment--Prostate: How do you code "watchful waiting" in these fields for prostate primaries?

For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and later: When "watchful waiting" is the first course of therapy for prostate cancer, code the case as follows:

Date Therapy Initiated: 000000

Surgery of Primary Site: 00

Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery: 0

Surgical Procedure of Other Site: 0

Reason for No Cancer-Directed Surgery: 1

Radiation: 0

Chemotherapy: 00

Hormone Therapy: 00

Immunotherapy: 00

Hematologic Transplant and Endocrine Procedures: 00

Other Cancer Directed Therapy: 0

 2002
20020008 Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: Does the presence of axillary lymph node(s) in a "simple mastectomy" specimen impact the coding of the Surgery of Primary Site field for breast primaries?

Yes. Determine whether there is, in fact, at least a portion of axillary tissue present. If axillary lymph nodes (not internal mammary nodes) are present in the specimen, code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 51 [Modified Radical Mastectomy WITHOUT removal of uninvolved contralateral breast]. If there are no axillary lymph nodes present in the specimen, code the Surgery to Primary Site field to 41 [Total (simple) mastectomy WITHOUT removal of uninvolved contralateral breast].

2002
20021093 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Colon: When an adenocarcinoma is stated to be arising in an adenoma and the "tumor size" stated in the final pathologic diagnosis is the same size as the mass described in the gross description, should we assume that the entire polyp has been totally/near totally replaced by tumor and code the tumor size stated in the final path diagnosis?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field as stated by the pathologist in the final pathologic diagnosis. If the size of the tumor is the same as the size of the polyp, assume the polyp was completely replaced by tumor.

 2002
20021050 EOD-Extension--Pancreas: If the tumor involvement for a case falls between two different regional extension codes, should we code to the lesser of the two codes or should we code extension as unknown? See discussion.

Example 1: CT scan description: Mass in the head of the pancreas. The duodenum is "surrounded" by tumor. Should we code extension to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS] or 99 [unknown] because the extension code could be further than 40. It could be 44 [extension to duodenum].

Example 2: CT scan description: Mass in region of pancreatic head and "root" of superior mesenteric artery consistent with pancreatic cancer. Should we code extension to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS] or 99 [unknown] because the extension code could be further than 40? It could be 54 [extension to major blood vessels].

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

In both examples, code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS]. Choose the lowest of a known possible extension code over an unknown code.

 2002
20021125 Histology (Pre-2007)--Testis: What code is used to represent the histology of "mixed germ cell tumor, embryonal carcinoma and mature teratoma" of the testis? See discussion. Is the teratoma required to be described as "immature" or "malignant" in order to use the histology code of 9081/3 [mixed embryonal carcinoma and teratoma]?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 9081/3 [Teratocarcinoma, mixed embryonal carcinoma and teratoma], in both ICD-O-2 and ICD-O-3.

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
20021189

Multiple Primaries--Lymphoma: How many primaries should be reported when a 5/99 diagnosis of stage III follicular large cell lymphoma [9698/3] of the conjunctiva [C69.0] is followed with a 6/01 diagnosis of small cleaved lymphoma [9591/3] of the breast [C50.9]? See discussion.

The Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases folding table states that this should be one primary, but is this true when they are both extralymphatic in origin?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Report as two primaries if that reflects the medical opinion for this case. The table is a guide, but does not overrule the clinician's opinion. These extranodal lymphomas are diagnosed in two different sites more than 2 months apart. They are listed as the same primary in the folding table because 9591/3 is generally a non-specific term and 9698/3 is a more specific cell type. If both histologies were diagnosed in the same organ or tissue, this is the same primary. However, the primary sites in this example are distinctly different.

For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.

 2002