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: 04/23/2026 08:56 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20020039 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/EOD-Extension--Bladder/Prostatic Urethra: When noninvasive papillary transitional carcinoma of the bladder and invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the prostatic urethra are diagnosed at the same time, and staged by the pathologist as two primaries, should they reported as two primaries? If reportable as a single primary what site code should be used?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

No. This is one primary. Mucosal spread of noninvasive cancer from a hollow organ (bladder) into another hollow organ (prostatic urethra) is coded as a single primary. The prostatic urethra is seldom a primary site. The cancer usually starts in the bladder and spreads to the prostatic urethra via the mucosa. In this case the cancer in the prostatic urethra became invasive. Code primary site as bladder, NOS [C67.9].

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD Extension using the invasive information (prostatic urethra).

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
20020051 CS Extension (Clinical)/SSF 3 (Pathologic Extension)--Prostate: Upon prostatectomy, the case was determined to be localized. There is no clinical assessment of the tumor prior to prostatectomy. Should clinical extension be coded to 99 [Unknown]? Please see discussion below. See discussion. We have a prostate case that is clinically inapparent. There is no staging info at all, no biopsy done. Then the patient has a prostatectomy with a single 0.4cm focus of Adenoca gr 3+3.

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, code CS Extension (clinical) as 99 [unknown]. The extension based on the prostatectomy is coded in Site Specific Factor 3 - Pathologic Extension.

 2002
20021151

Reportability: A "gastrointestinal stromal tumor" (GIST) is not always stated to be "malignant" in the path report even though the tumor appears to meet criteria for malignancy. Is the tumor SEER reportable? See discussion.

Evaluation of Malignancy and Prognosis of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Review. Miettinen, M. et al, Human Pathology 2002 May; 33(5) 478-83). This article states there is an increasing number of GISTs because the majority of tumors previously diagnosed as gastrointestinal smooth muscle tumors (leiomyomas, leiomyoblastomas and leiomyosarcomas) are now classified as GISTs. It states that gastrointestinal autonomic nerve tumors (GANTs) are also GISTs based on their KIT positivity and presence of KIT-activating mutations. This article also states that a GIST is probably malignant if it meets the following criteria: 1) Intestinal tumors: Maximum diameter >5 cm or more than 5 mitoses per 50 HPFs. 2) Gastric tumors: Maximum diameter >10 cm or more than 5 mitoses per 50 HPFs.

Some of the path reports that meet these criteria use the word "malignant", and others do not. Some of the cases that are not called "malignant" in the path diagnosis are signed out clinically as "malignant."

The case is reportable if a pathologist or clinician confirms a diagnosis of cancer. If there is no such confirmation, the case is not SEER reportable.

 2002
20021175 Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology if the final diagnosis between an electron microscopy report and the immunocytochemistry (ICC) differs and both histologies are specific (e.g., one report states papillary carcinoma and the other states squamous cell carcinoma)?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

There is no established hierarchy between electron microscopy and ICC findings. Contact the pathologists involved in these types of cases to determine the final histologic diagnosis.

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
20021201 EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent this field for a lymphoma with retroperitoneal lymph node involvement and splenomegaly?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Per AJCC, code spleen involvement which is demonstrated by:

1. Unequivocal palpable splenomegaly alone.

2. Equivocal palpable splenomegaly with radiologic confirmation (ultrasound or CT).

3. Enlargement or multiple focal defects that are neither cystic nor vascular (radiologic enlargement alone is inadequate).

If the spleen is proven to be involved, code extension for this case as 20 [Involvement of two or more lymph node regions on the same side of the diaphragm; Stage II].

If the spleen is not proven to be involved, code extension as 10 [Involvement of a single lymph node region; Stage I].

 2002
20021010

Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology adenocarcinoma with "areas of" papillary architecture and "foci of" squamous differentiation? Even though "areas of" and "foci" are non-majority terms, should histology be coded to the combination code of adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes [8255/3]?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to the majority of the tumor, which is 8140/3 [adenocarcinoma, NOS]. The terms "areas of" and "foci of" should be ignored because they are not terms that reflect the majority of the tumor. Therefore, we cannot use rule A on page 2 of Coding Complex Morphologic Diagnoses because this diagnosis does not represent a complex morphology.

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
20021144 EOD-Extension--Colon: What code is used to represent this field for a mid-ascending colon primary that invades through muscularis propria and into subserosal fibroadipose tissue that also presents with a "separate serosal nodule" of carcinoma within cecum that is consistent with a tumor implant (cT3, N0, M1)?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [Metastasis], because the nodule of carcinoma in the cecum is not contiguous with the mid-ascending primary colon tumor.

 2002
20021143 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: Should just one primary be reported when only ductal carcinoma in situ is diagnosed initially but the mastectomy performed as part of the first course of cancer-directed therapy, but more than 2 months after diagnosis, contains a diagnosis of invasive ductal carcinoma? See discussion. How do we code this case in light of the EOD guideline that states we include all information collected within 4 months of diagnosis or through the completion of first surgery in the absence of disease progression when coding.

For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:

Report this case as one invasive primary, unless stated to be two primaries by the clinician. This appears to be a single primary with different behaviors, rather than separate tumors.

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
20021174 Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: When the original pathology reports diagnosis indicates a grade and the review of slides (ROS) pathology report does not give a grade, can you code the histologic type from the ROS and the grade from the original pathology report? See discussion. For example, if the original diagnosis is "poorly differentiated carcinoma" and the ROS diagnosis is "squamous cell carcinoma," would the morphology code be 8070/33?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Yes. Code the Histology and Grade, Differentiation fields to 8070/33 [poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma]. Code the higher grade when different grades are specified for the same specimen and code the more specific morphology (i.e., squamous cell carcinoma rather than carcinoma, NOS).

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
20021118 Grade, Differentiation--Lymphoma/Leukemia: Should the term "Pre-T" be added to code 5 [T-cell] in the ICD-O-3 Table 22, 6th Digit Code for Immunophenotype Designation for Lymphoma and Leukemia?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 5 [T-cell] in the 6th digit of the ICD-O-3 morphology field when the terms "pre-T cell" or "T-precursor" are used. However, this is not an official change to ICD-O-3.

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