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: 02/16/2026 09:12 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20091124 CS Eval--Lung: How is the CS Reg Nodes Eval field to be coded when the FNA of a paratracheal lymph node is positive for adenocarcinoma and the patient subsequently undergoes neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy followed by an excision of multiple lymph node fragments that show adenocarcinoma? See Discussion. The CSv1 scheme for lung shows that code 1 under CS Reg Nodes Eval is a path staging basis. However, the definition for code 1 also states that no regional lymph nodes were removed for examination. Would we use code 1 because the case represents path staging basis? If we select code 5 because regional lymph nodes were dissected, the staging basis would be clinical. If we select code 6, the staging basis would be y.

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 code "6" for the CS LN evaluation field. As explained on page 113 in the 2007 SEER Manual, when post-operative disease is more extensive despite neoadjuvant therapy, this can be coded in the evaluation field. In this case, only an FNA was done on lymph nodes pre-operatively, but actual lymph nodes were removed and documented in the post-neoadjuvant excision of the lymph nodes which documented that they are histologically positive -- proving that the neoadjuvant therapy did not work.

 2009
20091110 MP/H Rules--Bladder: Should an invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder diagnosed in 2004 followed by an in situ urothelial carcinoma of the ureter diagnosed in 2008 be reported as multiple primaries per the three-year guideline in Rule M7 or a single primary per the subsite guideline in Rule M8? See Discussion. Rule M7 states, "Tumors diagnosed more than three (3) years apart are multiple primaries." Should this rule be modified to say, "Bladder tumors diagnosed more than three (3) years apart are multiple primaries"? Does Rule M7 apply to only bladder tumors or does this rule apply to tumors in any of the urinary sites similarly to Rule M8 which states, "Urothelial tumors in two or more of the following sites are a single primary: Renal pelvis (C659) Ureter (C669) Bladder (C670-C679) Urethra/prostatic urethra (C680)"?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M7 pertains to renal pelvis, ureter, bladder and other urinary sites as defined by the topography codes listed in the header of these rules.

An invasive urothelial bladder tumor followed more than three years later by an in situ TCC of the ureter are reported separate primaries. Rule M8 applies when the tumors in these sites are diagnosed within three years of each other.

2009
20091112 Grade-Breast: How is this field coded for a breast tumor described as "intermediate nuclear grade"? See Discussion.

Guidelines for selecting grade for breast primaries prioritize nuclear grade right after B&R grade. The conversion table displays only numeric values for nuclear grade. How is grade coded for tumors in which nuclear grade is described by terminology? Does it make a difference if the tumor is invasive or in situ?

Example 1: Ductal carcinoma, intermediate nuclear grade.

Example 2: Ductal carcinoma, high nuclear grade.

Example 3: Ductal carcinoma, moderate nuclear grade.

Example 4: DCIS, intermediate nuclear grade.

Use the table on page C-607 of the 2007 SEER manual. The terms "low," "intermediate," and "high" appear in the column labeled "BR Grade." Use this column to determine the appropriate grade code when grade is described using these terms. If the grade of an in situ tumor is described using these terms, use the table to determine the appropriate code for the grade field. 2009
20091039 CS Tumor Size--Lung:. Does code 997 (diffuse, entire lobe) for lung and main stem bronchus take precedence over a stated tumor size? See Discussion. Per SPCSM 2007 'Coding Instructions for CS Staging Data Items-CS Tumor Size' item 5c states that code 998 (diffuse, entire lung) for lung and main stem bronchus takes precedence over any mention of size. Does this apply to code 997 as well?

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.Code the stated tumor size rather than 997. Code 997 does not take precedence over tumor size at this time. According to CoC, the instructions in the CS Manual, Part I-27, rule 5c are to alert the user to special circumstances. Code 997 is not included because it is not diffuse for all of the sites listed. The site-specific rules and codes in the schema always take precedence. Further instructions and clarifications will be added to the lung schema, CS Manual Part II-317 in the next version of CS.

 2009
20091063 CS Lymph Nodes--Head and Neck: How is this field coded when a positive neck FNA is followed by a neck dissection that contains one of seventeen positive lymph nodes? See Discussion. The primary site is the right tongue. The patient underwent FNA of a right neck mass that was positive for squamous cell carcinoma. Subsequent right modified radical neck dissection showed one out of seventeen nodes positive for metastatic carcinoma. For head and neck primaries, the CS LN codes 10-19 represent a single positive ipsilateral regional node. Codes 20-29 represent multiple positive ipsilateral nodes.

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.If the neck dissection included the area of the positive FNA, count only the positive nodes from the dissection. Avoid double-counting a positive node for both an FNA and a dissection.

In the unlikely event that the dissection did not include the area of the positive FNA, add one positive node to the count from the dissection.

This instruction supersedes previous instructions.

 2009
20091058 MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney: How is histology coded when it is described in the pathology report as "Histologic type: Clear cell (conventional) renal cell carcinoma. Percent of sarcomatoid component: 10%"? See Discussion. MP/H rules for kidney, Table 1 lists both clear cell and sarcomatoid as specific types of renal cell carcinoma. The MP/H terms and definitions for kidney state that clear cell is architecturally diverse. For this case, does the sarcomatoid component represent a subtype of clear cell that has not been assigned an ICD-O code, and thus histology should be coded to 8310? Or does the sarcomatoid component represent a specific type of renal cell carcinoma for which rule H6 would apply? Should histology be coded 8255 for this case? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8310 [clear cell adenocarcinoma] according to rule H5. Renal cell, clear cell and sarcomatoid are mentioned in the diagnosis. Sarcomatoid is referred to as a component. Component is not one of the terms listed in rule H5 that indicate a more specific type. Ignore sarcomatoid in this case. Use table 1 to identify clear cell as a specific renal cell type. Code the specific type (clear cell) according to rule H5. 2009
20091013

Reportability--Skin: Is a "basal cell carcinoma of the skin of the lip with focal skin appendage differentiation" reportable?

The histology code for basal cell carcinoma with skin appendage differentiation is 8098/3. Basal cell carcinomas (8090-8110) are not reportable to SEER. Skin appendage tumors are not reportable to SEER unless stated to be carcinoma or stated to be malignant.

According to our pathologist consultant, basal cell carcinoma with focal skin appendage differentiation is basal cell carcinoma which exhibits adnexal (appendage) features, but it is still basal cell carcinoma.

The case example above is not reportable to SEER.

 2009
20091114 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: Would a left chest wall mass excision stated to be ductal carcinoma consistent with a breast primary and, "compatible with either local recurrence or potentially a metastasis" be a new primary per the MP/H rules? See Discussion. Patient underwent mastectomy in 1986 for infiltrating ductal carcinoma of left breast. Excision of left chest wall mass in March 2009 showed ductal carcinoma consistent with breast primary. The pathology report COMMENT stated it would be compatible with either local recurrence or a metastasis. The patient's primary breast carcinoma material is not available for direct comparison and the MP/H rules instruct us to ignore metastasis. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the MP/H rules do not apply to metastasis. If there is no further information available for this case, the MP/H rules do not apply to the 2009 diagnosis. 2009
20091017

Primary site--Esophagus: How is primary site coded for a tumor arising in a segment of the esophagus that was reconstructed using a segment of the colon? See Discussion.

A patient had a ruptured esophagus 25 years ago and had a segment of colon removed and transplanted to serve as esophagus. In 2007, the patient was diagnosed with carcinoma in a polyp by endoscopic biopsy of the transplanted 'esophagus'. What is the primary site code? Is this the same site schema to be used for Collaborative staging and surgery coding?

Code the primary site esophagus, NOS [C159]. Use the surgery codes and collaborative staging schema for esophagus. Document the unusual nature of this case in text fields.

2009
20091049 P/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung/Breast: Can we assume that a current tissue specimen is a recurrence of previous primary if a pathologist states that he has compared the current specimen with the slides from the prior tumor and concludes that the current tumor is "similar" to a previous tumor? See Discussion.

The MP/H rule general information section states that we do not accession a second primary unless a pathologist compares the current tumor to the original tumor and states that the current tumor is a recurrence of cancer from the previous primary. In our experience it is rare that a pathologist speaks so bluntly. They frequently hedge somewhat.

Are the following statements worded strongly enough for us to make the assumption that the current tumor is a recurrence of patient's previous cancer?

Example 1: Pathologist states: Patient's prior lung tumor reviewed. The tumor in the current case (left lower lobe) shows similarities to some areas of the patient's prior left lower lobe tumor.

Example 2: Pathologist states: The focus of ductal carcinoma in the mastectomy specimen does resemble the carcinoma in the previous partial mastectomy specimen. (Slides reviewed).

All pathologists do not use words in the same way. Therefore, we will not provide a list of specific words to accept or not to accept in order to determine recurrence. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, do not base your decision about recurrence on words such as "similar" or "resembles." If the pathologist believes two or more tumors are the same or believes one is a recurrence of another after comparison, accept it. When pathologists believe that two or more tumors are not the same or believe that one is not a recurrence of another, there is usually a strong statement indicating that opinion. 2009