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: 09/11/2025 12:00 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20031068

EOD-Extension--Colon: Is a pathology description of "superficial invasion of the muscularis mucosa in the upper stalk of the polyp" coded in this field to 10 [mucosa (including intramucosal) NOS], 12 [Muscularis mucosa], or 14 [Stalk of polyp]? See Description.

Do we use the highest applicable value because all three definitions are used in the following example? Ex: Path diagnosis: Sigmoid polyp: tubulovillous adenoma with a focus within upper portion of stalk consistent with superficially invasive (intramucosal) colonic adenocarcinoma (see Comment). Comment: ... in the upper stalk region, there is evidence of superficially invasive carcinoma which appears to be limited to the muscularis mucosa and thus would be intramucosal by classification.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code extension as 12 [muscularis mucosae]. For this case, "upper stalk" is a reference to location rather than extension. This adenocarcinoma extends to the muscularis mucosa.

 2003
20031007 EOD Extension--Lung: Do we ignore pericardial effusion seen on a CXR if a subsequent lobectomy reveals only a localized tumor? See discussion. Note 6 in the lung EOD scheme instructs us to assume that a pleural effusion is negative if a resection is done. Does this also apply to a pericardial effusion? For example, if a pericardial effusion is seen on CXR, and a subsequent lobectomy reveals only a localized tumor, should the effusion be ignored? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Ignore pericardial effusion which is negative for tumor. Assume that a pericardial effusion is negative if a resection is done and the tumor is pathologically confirmed to be localized. 2003
20031081 Primary Site/EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Lung: If the only lung mass described in CXR is a "hilar mass," is the primary site coded to C34.9 [Lung, NOS] or C34.0 [Main Bronchus; incl. Carina]? Also, can the size of the hilar mass be used to code the size of tumor field?

Because the only description available is "hilar mass," code primary site as C34.0.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Use size of mass for EOD-Size of Primary Tumor.

 2003
20031075 EOD-Extension--Colon: How should this field be coded for "adenocarcinoma penetrating through bowel wall into adjacent adipose tissue? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The difference between EOD-extension codes 40 and 45 is the level of the fat involved. Code 40 is subserosal fat immediately adjacent to the muscular wall of the colon inside the serosa/visceral peritoneum. Code 45 is pericolic fat in areas where there is a serosal surface or in the retroperitoneal areas of the ascending and descending colon where there is no serosa. Code 42 was added for use when it is not possible to determine whether subserosal fat or pericolic fat is involved. Code 42 should be used only when there is a reference to 'fat' (NOS) The answer for the case example above depends on the location of the primary and whether the fat referred to is within or outside the entire thickness of the colon wall. If no additional information is available, use code 42 [Fat, NOS]. 2003
20031150 Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: Should the histology "non-invasive papillary carcinoma" along with the comment "solid intraductal papillary proliferation includes cytologically atypical cells with scattered mitotic figures" be coded to 8503/2 [intraductal papillary carcinoma] or 8050/2 [papillary carcinoma in situ]?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

The best histology code for this breast case is 8503/2 [Noninfiltrating intraductal papillary carcinoma]. According to the WHO Classification of Tumors for Breast, Papillary carcinoma, non-invasive is a synonym for Intraductal papillary carcinoma. Further, code a more specific histologic type when found in the microscopic description, according to the SEER Program Code manual.

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
20031151 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can size be coded from a needle bx that removes all of the invasive tumor and just leaves a "focus of in situ"? See Description. For example: needle bx diagnosis is "tiny focus of tissue highly suspicious for tubular ca." The lumpectomy path states "single focus of low grade DCIS, no residual ductal ca." Can size be coded 001? Code tumor size to 001 [Microscopic focus or foci only] for the invasive component. Code the tumor size 990 for cases diagnosed in 2004 and forward. Disregard the microscopic tumor found at further resection. 2003
20031210 Other Cancer-Directed Therapy--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is there a hierarchy for selecting which code to use when a patient receives more than one type of "other treatment"? See Description. Patient was diagnosed with Myelodysplastic Syndrome, probably refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia. Good candidate for investigational studies for transfusion-dependent patients. Patient was enrolled in a high dose vitamin D study. Patient also received transfusions.

SEER has not established a hierarchy of the codes listed under Other Treatment. If the patient receives more than one type of other treatment as the first course of treatment, assign the code that provides the most information about how the patient was treated and use the remarks fields to explain.

Code Other Treatment for the case example above as 2 [Other experimental therapy]. Use the remarks fields to describe the transfusions and vitamin D therapy.

 2003
20031052

Diagnostic Confirmation--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a multiple myeloma diagnosed by an FNA of the lumbar spine (or any other non-bone marrow location) a diagnostic confirmation 1 or 2? See Description.

Does the rule on page 111 of the SEER Program Coding Manual, 3rd Edition, for code 1 apply to myelomas (in the same way it applies to leukemias)?

Assign code 1 [Positive histology] for aspiration of bone marrow. This rule is not limited to leukemias.

 2003
20031012 EOD-Lymph Nodes/Extension: How does one code these fields if the clinical level of disease extension prior to neoadjuvant treatment is greater than demonstrated on pathology at time of resection? See discussion. Breast case described clinically as a "breast mass and nodal metastases" which is treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and at surgery the lymph nodes are pathologically negative.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Use the combination of clinical and pathologic information to code EOD for primary site, extension and lymph nodes. Code the more extensive disease. If lymph nodes are positive clinically and not positive after neoadjuvant treatment, code lymph node involvement. If lymph nodes are negative clinically and positive on path, code lymph node involvement. When neoadjuvant treatment is administered because of a clinical statement of stage or involvement, code EOD based on this clinical information, even if later pathologic information would lead to a lesser EOD. General guideline number 6 (page 1 of SEER EOD-88 3rd ed.) points out that clinical information must be considered when coding EOD. However, do not code EOD based on clinical information disproved by pathologic findings in the absence of intervening treatment. The scenario above: The clinical involvement of the nodes justifies the neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Therefore, code EOD based on the clinical lymph node involvement.

 2003
20031055

Histology (Pre-2007)/Primary Site/Diagnostic Confirmation: How would these fields be coded for a diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma based on clinical findings only? See Discussion.

We have a case of reported "cholangiocarcinoma" of the liver diagnosed only by a CT of the abdomen. There is no pathologic confirmation. CT ABD: Heterogeneous liver mass suspicious for cholangiocarcinoma; mass causes right portal & right hepatic vein occlusion & right and left biliary duct dilatation....

Should this be coded to cholangiocarcinoma by radiology alone and should it be liver as primary site?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code according to the prevailing medical opinion in this case. If no further information can be obtained, code as cholangiocarcinoma of the intrahepatic bile duct.

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