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: 09/13/2025 20:56 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20051131

Recurrence/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Primary Site--Breast: Is a malignancy that occurs in 2005 in a mastectomy scar years following an original diagnosis of breast cancer in 1971 a recurrence (not reportable) or a new primary (breast or chest wall, NOS)? See Discussion.

The patient had a right mastectomy for breast carcinoma in 1971. In 2005, she came in with a mass in the right axilla and a right chest wall mass in the mastectomy scar. Excision of the axillary mass and biopsy of the chest wall mass revealed invasive adenocarcinoma with a similar histologic pattern. The axilla specimen contained no benign breast tissue. IHC stains exhibit strongly positive for ER, mildly positive for PR and negative for HER2/neu. The pathologist says "Although these findings are consistent with recurrent breast carcinoma, they are not specific for such. Recurrence after 34 yrs. is most unusual."

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

The 2005 diagnosis is a new primary. The 1971 site differs from the 2005 site and there are more than two months between the two. Without further information, assign topography code C761 [chest wall]. The pattern of spread, including regional extension, is different for a primary of the chest wall compared to a primary in the breast. Coding the primary site to C761 will group this case with similar cases.

If further information can be obtained, look for old records that describe the extent of the 1971 mastectomy. It is possible that there was breast tissue left on the chest wall. Residual breast tissue is often present following mastectomy (simple, modified, or even radical). New carcinoma can develop in the remaining breast tissue.

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.

 2005
20051135 2004 SEER Manual Errata/CS Tumor Size--Can the Determining Descriptive Tumor Size information, on page 6 in the SEER EOD Manual, January 1998, be used to code descriptive tumor size in Collaborative Stage?

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.

Use the instructions in the CS Manual, Appendix 1, page 62. This information will be added to the 2004 SEER manual in the next update.

Do not use the Determining Descriptive Tumor Size information from EOD for CS Tumor Size.

 2005
20051048 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Recurrence--Cervix: How many primaries should be abstracted if a patient had a diagnosis in 1998 of adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix treated with a total hysterectomy and a July 2004 vaginal mass biopsy with a diagnosis of invasive adenocarcinoma that is consistent with an endocervical primary?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Abstract the July 2004 diagnosis as a new endocervical primary. Abstract an invasive cancer in the same site more than two months after an in situ cancer as a new primary. Residual cervical tissue is present following a hysterectomy.

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.

 2005
20051017 CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: Is it better to code to 26 [Stated as N1, NOS] or 28 [Stated as N2, NOS] instead of 60 [Axillary/regional lymph nodes, NOS; Lymph nodes, NOS] when the only information in the medical record is the TNM N1 or N2 physician stage?

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.

Yes. When the only indication of lymph node involvement is the physician's N category from TNM, code the numerically lowest equivalent CS Lymph Nodes code for that N category.

In the breast schema, CS Lymph Nodes code 26 corresponds to N1, NOS and code 28 corresponds to N2, NOS.

 2005
20051139 Date of Diagnosis--Lung: Should the diagnosis date be coded to the date of the scan or the date of the resection when there is a negative biopsy that occurs between the two procedures? See Discussion.

11/2003 CT chest: 2 cm LLL mass should be considered carcinoma until proven otherwise.

2/2004 CT Chest: stable LLL mass still consistent with primary or metastatic lung neoplasm

11/2004 CT chest: LLL mass suspicious for slow growing carcinoma

3/2005 FNA L lung: atypical cells

4/2005 L lobectomy: well-diff adenocarcinoma

 Code the date of diagnosis as 11/2003. A clinical diagnosis was made on 11/2003 and this is the earliest date of diagnosis for this case. 2005
20051074 CS Extension/CS Lymph Nodes--Colon: What codes are used when large vessel invasion (V2 grossly evident) is stated to be present on a pathology report? See Discussion.

Example

Cecum, right hemicolectomy: poorly differentiated invasive adenocarcinoma of the cecum. Large vessel invasion (V2-grossly evident) is present. Microscopic description: The grossly described matted lymph node tissue shows an irregular nuclear contour and is classified as V2, grossly evident venous invasion based on staging criteria of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 6th Edition.

Per note 2 in the coding scheme for CS-Extension, a nodule with irregular contour in the pericolic adipose tissue should be coded in CS-Extension to code 45. Is the large vessel invasion described in the path report the same process as a tumor nodule in pericolic fat? Should note 2 be used and CS-Extension coded to 45?

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.The description of large vessel invasion and irregular nuclear contour from the example above describes grossly matted LYMPH NODE tissue. Do not code this in the CS Extension field. Code the CS Lymph Nodes field appropriately based on the rest of the information for this case.

When large vessel invasion and irregular nuclear contour is used to describe a "tumor nodule," rather than a recognizable lymph node, code it in the CS extension field.

 2005
20051120 CS Eval--Colon: Should 1 [No surgical resection done...] or 3 [Surgical resection performed...] be used to correctly reflect this field when a surgical observation is "adherent to duodenum" but the extension per the pathology is stated to be to the "subserosal tissue"? See Discussion. 7/2/04 Op Findings 5 cm mass in mid transverse colon involving also the right colon; mass was adherent to duodenum without obvious invasion. 7/2/04 Path: Rt & Transverse Colon: 6x5 cm mass, micro: MD Adenoca with invasion of subserosal tissue; margins neg. 17/17 colic LNs negative.

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.For the case described above, code extension as 46 [Adherent to other organ...no microscopic tumor found in adhesion]. Code CS TS/Ext eval as 3 [Surgical resection performed...].

Surgery was performed for this case. The fact that the adherence to the duodenum was proven not to be tumor involvement should be coded as 3 in CS TS/Ext Eval. By using eval code 3, the case will map to a pathologic T indicating that the patient had resective surgery. Eval code 1 would map to a clinical T, incorrect for this case.

 2005
20041044 EOD-Extension--Breast: If the pathology report states "infiltrating duct carcinoma...measuring 7mm in diameter...focal areas of intraductal carcinoma," do we code this field to 14 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in Tumor Size and in situ described as minimal] or to 16 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in Tumor Size and proportions of in situ and invasive not known]?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: If 7mm is the measurement of the infiltrating duct portion of this cancer, assign extension code 13 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of invasive component stated and coded in Tumor Size].

If 7mm is the size of the whole malignancy and the size of the invasive portion cannot be determined, assign extension code 14 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in Tumor Size (size of invasive component not stated) and in situ described as minimal (less than 25%)]. "Focal areas of in situ carcinoma" qualifies as minimal.

 2004
20041073 Primary Site/Histology--Lymphoma: How are these fields coded when the final diagnosis per the pathology report is, "Soft tissue and skeletal muscle, left thigh--Large B cell lymphoma with polyclonal and mature t-cells, involving the soft tissue"?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Site: C492 [Soft tissue thigh]

Histology: 9680/36 [T-cell rich large B-cell lymphoma]

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.

 2004
20041062 Histology (Pre-2007): Can we ever code this field using a more specific cell type from a metastatic site specimen rather than to a less specific cell type from the primary site specimen? See Discussion. The histology for a metastatic deposit biopsy is mucin-producing adenocarcinoma. This report states that the primary site is the stomach. It is more specific than the histology from the stomach biopsy described as adenocarcinoma, NOS.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the histology for the case example to 8481/3 [mucin-producing adenocarcinoma], the more specific histology.

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.

 2004