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: 04/26/2026 07:08 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20031200 Reportability/Terminology, NOS--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is "smoldering" multiple myeloma reportable to SEER?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Yes, "smoldering" multiple myeloma is reportable to SEER as multiple myeloma [9732/3].

According to our pathologist consultant, "smoldering" multiple myeloma would certainly refer to a diagnosed process. Smoldering means the process is progressing, but perhaps slowly, or even at a slower pace than might be expected.

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.

 2003
20031101 Primary Site/Behavior Code/EOD-Extension: How would these fields be coded for "squamous cell carcinoma in situ involving papilloma -- locally aggressive but not technically invasive" found in the sphenoid sinus, soft tissue of the skull base and brain? See Description.

The managing physician has staged this pathologically as T4 N0 M0 squamous cell carcinoma of the ethmoid sinuses. The final pathology report says " Sinus, sphenoid, resection: papillary neoplasm most consistent with inverted papilloma with squamous cell carcinoma in situ, 7 cm in greatest extent, focus of probable superficial invasion (see comment).

Soft tissue, skull base, excision: involved by papillary neoplasm with squamous cell carcinoma in situ (see comment). Brain, extradural, intercranial biopsy: involved by papilloma with squamous cell carcinoma in situ. COMMENT:

This is a predominantly exophytic neoplasm with infolding of the tumor epithelium and in situ extension into submucosal glands. There are only focal areas suspicious for invasive squamous cell carcinoma, with probable invasion (<2mm) in one section....The histologic features are most consistent with an inverted papilloma with carcinoma in situ." When asked to comfirm if the diagnosis were in situ or superficially invasive, the pathologist responded "Squamous cell carcinoma in situ involving a papilloma. Locally aggressive but not technically invasive."

Code site to C31.3 [sphenoid sinus]. Code the site based on the final pathology report diagnosis. In the case example, the site attributed to the managing physician appears to be an error.

Code behavior to 3 [malignant, primary site]. The SEER list of terms meaning involvement may be used to help determine behavior. The terms used by the pathologist are "probable" superficial invasion and "suspicious" for invasive squamous cell carcinoma with "probable" invasion. Interpret as invasive.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code extension to 70 [Brain] because this tumor involves the brain.

 2003
20031054 Grade, Differentiation: Is grade always coded to 4 for a diagnosis of Ewing's sarcoma?

Do not code the ICD-O-3 grade for Ewing sarcoma unless documented in the record.

In the TNM system, grade is required to place Ewing sarcoma into a stage group. For TNM staging purposes, Ewing sarcoma is classified as G4. Do not apply TNM rules to ICD-O coding.

 2003
20031056

Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: For a patient with a remote history of lobular breast carcinoma, would a new diagnosis of lobular breast carcinoma with DCIS be a new primary, even though the physician designates it as recurrent? See Description.

A history of right breast lobular ca in 1991 treated with a partial mastectomy. Diagnosed 3/02 with "recurrent right breast ca" per physician; pathology in 2002 is lobular and DCIS.

Would the DCIS make this a new primary regardless of the physician's designation of 'recurrent' or is this the same primary?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Accession as two breast primaries -- the first lobular ca in 1991; the second lobular and DCIS in 2002.

The differing histologies and the length of time between them negate the physician's designation as "recurrent" in this case.

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.

 2003
20031114 EOD-Extension--Colon: How is this field coded for an appendical primary when the appendix has ruptured and intrapentoneal fluid is positive? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD extension as 85 [Metastasis]. Positive intraperitoneal fluid is equivalent to distant metastasis (implantation) for colon, including appendix, primaries. 2003
20031116

EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can the term "filling defect" be used to code tumor size? See Description.

Site: Bladder

CT abd/pelvis: 4 cm filling defect of the bladder encasing jetstream of distal ureter. 2-3 cm lesion may be extension to bladder. KUB: 3-4 cm filling defect within bladder.

Cystoscopy: large bladder tumor with small tumor extending out of the large tumor.

OP Findings: Large tumor on right of bladder extending from bladder neck lateral and posterior

Pathology: TURB: High grade TCC, Grade III with focal lamina propria invasion.

For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:

Information on size from imaging/radiographic techniques can be used to code size when there is no more specific size information from a pathology or operative report, but it should be taken as low priority, just above a physical exam.

The term "filling defect" from a CT or KUB may be used to code tumor size for bladder in the absence of more reliable size information from path, operative or endoscopic reports.

 2003
20031111 EOD-Extension--Lung: For a left upper lobe lung tumor that extends across the fissure into the left lower lobe, should this field be coded to 10 [Tumor confined to one lung] or 77 [Separate tumor nodules in different lobe]? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Assign EOD extension code 10 [Tumor confined to one lung]. EOD extension code 10 applies to a single tumor within one lung, even one that crosses over a fissure into another lobe. EOD extension code 10 is not correct if the tumor extends to the pleura, or if there is atelectasis, obstructive pneumonitis or malignant pleural effusion. Code 77 is incorrect because that is a separate tumor nodule in a different lobe. 2003
20031144 Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology "Ductal carcinoma in situ; 6 mm focus of invasion is a pure mucinous carcinoma that appears to have arisen in the background of encysted papillary carcinoma."

Code to mucinous (8480) since that is the only clearly invasive component of this diagnosis.

According to our pathologist consultant, "Encysted papillary carcinoma is the same thing as intracystic papillry carcinoma, which I think of as an intraductal papillary carcinoma which has greatly expanded the duct to form a cyst-like structure. It generally behaves in an in-situ rather than an invasive fashion. The only clearly invasive component is the mucinous carcinoma, which is what I would code."

 2003
20031205 EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined: How are these fields coded when an autopsy report reveals pathologically involved regional lymph nodes but does not state how many nodes were positive nor how many were examined? See Description. A final autopsy report described widely disseminated adenocarcinoma, probably lung primary. Metastatic tumor in brain, lungs, and in lymph nodes. The Gross description of the autopsy report stated that there were numerous metastases to hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes. The Micro description of the autopsy report did not add any clarification. In the absence of a stated number of lymph nodes, the options for coding number of regional lymph nodes examined are codes 96-98. These codes include descriptions of surgical procedures such as sampling and dissection. How do we code number of regional lymph nodes examined when the pathological examination of lymph nodes was done only at autopsy and not during a surgical procedure?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The rules that apply to the use of pathology reports for EOD coding also apply to autopsy reports.

When a cancer diagnosis is made and positive lymph nodes are discovered on autopsy, in the absence of a stated number of lymph nodes, code the number of lymph nodes positive to 97 [Positive nodes but number of positive nodes not specified]. Code the number of lymph nodes examined to 97 [Regional lymph node removal documented as dissection and number of lymph nodes unknown/not stated]. An autopsy is a dissection.

 2003
20031072

EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: Is extracapsular extension implied by the phrase "tumor invades the fibrous tissue of the capsule"? See Description.

The physician staged to a pathology stage of T3. It appears the physician regards the following pathology statement to be equivalent to capsular invasion on the right side: "Tumor invades the fibrous tissue of the capsule on the right side where it approaches to within 1 mm. of the surgical margin." Should pathologic extension be coded to 42[unilateral extracapsular extension]?

Use the best information available to stage the case. In this case, the best information is the pathologist's description of the tumor extension rather than the AJCC stage.

For cases diagnosed 1995-2003: Extracapsular extension is not implied by the phrase in the question. Code the capsular involvement described to 32 [invasion into but not beyond the prostatic capsule] on the basis of the pathology report.

 2003