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: 03/02/2026 03:40 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20091084 Primary site--Colon: How do you determine the correct subsite when there is conflicting information in different reports? Are there priority rules for coding subsite for sites other than Head and Neck? See Discussion. The path report for a hemicolectomy says, " Specimen: left colon..." and the microscopic says, "...received in formalin designated left colon..." The Operative procedure report says, "Postoperative diagnosis - splenic flexure tumor." The text of this report says, "Mobilizing the splenic flexure mass was incredibly difficult..." and then goes on to describe exactly how and where it was resected. The discharge summary says adenosquamous carcinoma of the splenic flexure. SINQ20051010 says to use the pathology report first, but this was written before the new MP/H rules.

Use the operative report information to code primary site in this case. It is more accurate.

The operative report is usually a better source of location information compared to the pathology report. The pathologist can only reiterate the location as it was reported to him/her.

The 2007 SEER manual states "Unless otherwise instructed, use all available information to code the site," page 69.

 2009
20091031 MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: How is histology coded for a thyroid tumor described as "predominantly papillary carcinoma, tall cell variant, follicular type"?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8340 [Papillary carcinoma, follicular variant] according to rule H15 for Other Sites.

"Predominantly" and "type" indicate specific histologies. "Variant" does not. See rule H13. The histology in this case is papillary and follicular. Tall cell variant is ignored.

 2009
20091087 Reportability--Appendix: Is a metastatic low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm reportable if the pathologist states that it is a borderline tumor of the appendix? See Discussion. Low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm; Lt ovary, cul-de-sac, omentum, and small bowel: Metastatic low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm. Per pathologist this is a borderline tumor of the appendix. Borderline tumors (other than brain and CNS) are not reportable to SEER. In the case of borderline tumors, the term "metastatic" does not automatically make them reportable. When the "metastatic deposits" are also borderline, the case is not reportable. For this case in particular, the "metastases" are actually (benign) implants and not malignant or invasive mets. 2009
20091092

MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How should Diagnosis Date, Diagnostic Confirmation and Histology be coded for the LEFT lung mass in the following case?

PET shows a 3 cm mass in the left lung and a 2.9 cm mass in the right lung. No reportable terminology in PET. The right mass is biopsied and shows adenocarcinoma. The left mass is not biopsied. Based on rule M6, this should be reported as two primaries. No additional information in medical record. Patient expired.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

For date of diagnosis, use the date of the PET scan for both primaries. For the left tumor, assign diagnostic confirmation code 8 [Clinical diagnosis only] and assign histology code 8000/3 [malignant neoplasm].

The left lung mass is reported as a separate primary because there is one tumor in each lung. According to Rule M6, when there is one tumor in the left lung and one tumor in the right lung, each tumor is a separate primary. Tumor and mass are equivalent terms for purposes of the multiple primary rules.

 2009
20091012 MP/H Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: If the final diagnosis states "see microscopic description," can the micro information be used to code the histology? See Discussion. In regards to coding histology for 2007 and forward cases, we are instructed to use the final diagnosis, and any addenda or comments associated with the final diagnosis. We are not to use the microscopic description. However, we are seeing pathology reports with a final diagnosis that also includes the notation "see microscopic description" or "see description". Example: "Left Parotid: High grade carcinoma involving deep lobe with marginal extension. See description." The microscopic description goes on to describe the carcinoma in more detail, which includes a statement "consistent with the ductal type of primary parotid carcinoma." Can we use this microscopic description or not?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

When the final diagnosis indicates that the microscopic section contains the detailed diagnosis, use the microscopic description to code the histology.

Otherwise, code from the final diagnosis only and not from the microscopic description. The final diagnosis is usually the pathologist's conclusion after consideration of the various choices listed in the microscopic description. The histology code should represent the pathologist's final conclusion.

 2009
20091094 Reportability--Anal canal: Are squamous cell carcinomas arising in a condyloma of the rectum reportable or should we assume that the site is skin of anus or perianal area and not reportable? Squamous cell carcinoma arising in a rectal condyloma is reportable. Do not assume the site is skin of anus or perianal. 2009
20091045 CS Tumor Size/CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: When tumor size is unknown, but it is known that both in situ and invasive components are present, how should CS Tumor Size and SSF6 be coded? See Discussion. We coded CS Tumor Size 990 and SSF 6 to 060 for a case in which no tumor size was mentioned and the breast core biopsy identified microinvasive infiltrating lobular carcinoma and lobular carcinoma insitu. The lumpectomy identified no residual tumor. SEER edit 218 states we must have CS Tumor Size as 999 if the CS SSF 6 is 060. Yet the tumor size code of 990 (Microinvasion; microscopic focus or foci only, no size given; described as less than 1 mm) would more accurately reflect this case. Even in a situation where there was microinvasion described as less than 1mm, the edit will not allow one to code CS Tumor Size to 990 with the CS SSF 6 as 060. Should these types of cases have CS Tumor Size coded 999 or should the edit be adjusted to allow for this combination?

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 CS tumor size 990 [Microinvasion; microscopic focus or foci only, no size given; described as less than 1 mm] and CS SSF6 050 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in CS Tumor Size because size of invasive component not stated AND proportions of in situ and invasive not known].

This combination of codes captures the information available for this case.

 2009
20091129 Primary Site--Breast: What subsite is to be coded for a case of invasive Paget disease of the nipple with an infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the lower inner quadrant? Code C50.9 [Breast, NOS]. Code the last digit of the primary site to '9' for single primaries when multiple tumors arise in different subsites of the same anatomic site and the point of origin cannot be determined. Nipple [C50.0] and LIQ [C50.3] fit this rule. This is a single primary per MP/H Breast Rule M9. 2009
20091128

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be accessioned when a patient was diagnosed with breast carcinoma in 2001 and was subsequently diagnosed with a mammary carcinoma in a chest wall mass in 2008? See Discussion.

Patient was diagnosed with invasive lobular carcinoma of the right breast in April 2001. Following modified radical mastectomy in May 2001, the patient was disease free. In December 2008 the patient was diagnosed with a right chest wall mass, invasive poorly differentiated mammary carcinoma with lobular origin. If this is a new primary in 2008, would we code the primary site to breast or chest wall? Please see I&R answers 25924, 22163 and 26155 with similar case scenarios that give two different answers. One response indicates coding this type of scenario as new primary to chest wall and the other two responses indicate this should not be a new primary because the chest wall is a metastatic site. The pathology report does not state that this is metastatic and it is unknown if there is breast tissue left behind at the chest wall.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this case is a single primary. The chest wall (NOS) is a metastatic site for breast cancer. There is no mention of residual breast tissue, so the 2008 diagnosis cannot be a new primary.

"Chest wall" is an ambiguous term. It can mean the internal chest wall or the external chest wall. When the path report states that the "recurrence" is in residual breast tissue, this is most likely the external chest wall and the residual breast tissue is part of the breast not removed by the MRM. In contrast, skin or the chest wall, NOS, are regional metastases.

 2009
20091123

Reportability: Is a tumor reportable if the pathology report indicates a non-reportable diagnosis at the time the specimen is removed but subsequent clinical statements state the patient had a reportable tumor? See Discussion.

The 2007 SEER Manual (page 3) states that cases diagnosed clinically are reportable. Exception 2 states if enough time has passed that it is reasonable to assume the physician has seen the negative pathology report, but the clinician continues to call this a reportable disease, accession the case.

SEER reporting guidelines state that severe dysplasia is not reportable, however, many clinicians regard it to be equivalent to carcinoma in situ.

Example 1: In 09-2007 the pathology report for excisional biopsy of right floor of mouth states the final diagnosis is severe dysplasia. At the time, the case is not accessioned based on non-reportable pathology. Patient is subsequently admitted in 3-09. According to the clinical history the patient was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma in 2007 and treated with laser. Is this reportable? If yes, how is behavior to be coded? How is "Ambiguous Terminology at Diagnosis" to be coded?

Example 2: In 2-08, the pathology report for a punch biopsy of a skin lesion states the final diagnosis is atypical melanocytic hyperplasia. In 3-08, patient is admitted for re-excision. The clinical diagnosis states re-excision being done for melanoma in situ.

Reference: SINQ 20061123

A tumor that is non-reportable based on the pathology report diagnosis should not be accessioned if later clinician statements mistakenly refer to it as a reportable tumor. The exception in the 2007 SEER manual on page 3 is intended to allow the registrar to accession a case when the clinician actually disagrees with the pathology report and clinically diagnoses a reportable tumor.

 2009