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: 02/14/2026 19:36 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20071025 Radiation Therapy: How is radiation coded when it is "recommended" but the patient dies before radiation is started? See Discussion. Code 0 seems appropriate but then we would lose the fact that it had been recommended. All of the other modalities give an option for 'recommended but patient died prior to treatment.' Is there a reason this option is not given for radiation?

Code Radiation (Rx Summ--Radiation) to 0 [None; diagnosed at autopsy].

SEER does not collect the Reason For No Radiation field. However, those who abstract using software that captures this data item can identify these cases. Code 5 [radiation not administered because patient died] reflects this situation.

Radiation (Rx Summ-Radiation) is a SEER field. This field is derived from the data collected in Rad-Boost Rx Modality and Rad-Regional TX Modality. These fields do not include a choice for "radiation not given because the patient died prior to treatment." Therefore, this information cannot be coded in the Radiation field.

 2007
20071096 Multiplicity Counter--Prostate: How is multiplicity counter to be coded for a clinically inapparent prostate cancer for which sextant needle biopsy cores on left and right sides are positive for adenocarcinoma? See Discussion.

Prostate cancer typically presents as multifocal diffuse disease. The coding exercise in the MPH rules presentations coded prostate cancer as one tumor.

Reference: SEER Training Web Casts - Other Sites Rules Practicum

 Code the number of tumors present if known. This information can be taken from any part of the record, including imaging and prostatectomy. If the only information available is "diffuse," or "multifocal," assign code 99. Do not assume there are multiple tumors just beacause there are multiple biopsies. When there is no information about the number of tumors, code Multiplicity Counter to 99 and Type of Multiple Tumors to 99. 2007
20071092 Reportability/Primary Site--Brain and CNS: Is a chondroma, NOS or a chondroblastoma, NOS that occurs in an intracranial site or along the spinal cord reportable? See Discussion.

In ICD-O-3, chondroma and chondroblastoma are site-associated morphologies for bone. If a chondroma or a chondroblastoma occurs along the spinal cord, is this one of those situations where we can be quite comfortable with a default site to bone and not to spinal cord?

Reference: ICD-O-3; Primary Central Nervous System Tumors, NPCR Training Materials 2004; SINQ 20021152

Chondroma, NOS or chondroblastoma, NOS occuring in intracranial sites or along the spinal cord are not reportable.

Chondroma, NOS and chonroblastoma, NOS are benign tumors of the bone itself, not the intracranial contents.

 2007
20071047 Ambiguous Terminology: Why do the instructions for this field use the term "accession" rather than "abstract"? The purpose of the new data item "Ambiguous Terminology" is to identify cases that were put into the cancer registry database without a conclusive diagnosis. The decision to accession the case was influenced by ambigous terminology. The emphasis is on accessioning the case rather than abstracting it. 2007
20071040 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Melanoma: Is there a difference between multiple primary rules M6 and M7 because both rules state that tumors occurring more than 60 days apart are to be reported as multiple primaries? See Discussion.

Rule M6 clearly states that an invasive melanoma occurring more than 60 days after an in situ melanoma is a multiple primary. However M7 states that any melanomas diagnosed more than 60 days apart are multiple primaries. Since M7 does not state malignant melanomas diagnosed more than 60 days apart, this implies that any scenario:

in situ following an invasive,

invasive following an in situ,

in situ following an in situ,

or invasive following an invasive

are all multiple primaries if more than 60 days apart. If that is the intent of M7, then M6 is totally unnecessary. If the intent of M7 is only for an invasive following an invasive, then the word malignant needs to be inserted as the first word of rule M7.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, M7 is intended to apply to in situ and invasive melanomas. Therefore, M6 and M7 are repetitive.

This will be corrected when revisions are made to the MP/H rules. In the meantime, both M6 and M7 result in multiple primaries so it does not matter which rule is used.

 2007
20071110 Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: The Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases, page 47, states to determine whether the physician is using the term myelodysplasia to describe bone marrow marrow malfunction or a neoplasic syndrome in order to determine reportability. What do we do when there is no information one way or the other?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Without further information, the term "myelodysplasia" alone is not reportable. If a more definitive diagnosis is made later, the case may become reportable.

For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, 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.

 2007
20071103 MP/H rules/Histology--Breast: How many primaries and what histologies are coded for a left breast when a bi-lumpectomy path reveals one tumor with a microscopic focus of mucinous adenocarcinoma and extensive DCIS and a second .9 cm mucinous adenocarcinoma with extensive DCIS, and the subsequent mastectomy reveals foci of residual DCIS and Paget's disease of the nipple?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

There are two primaries. Primary 1: The two tumors described on the pathology report from the lumpectomy are a single primary using rule M13. Primary 2: Disregard the foci of residual DCIS. Paget disease of the nipple is a separate primary using rule M12.

Primary 1: invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma and extensive ductal carcinoma in situ: Code the histology as 8480/3 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] using rule H27.

Primary 2: Paget disease of nipple: Code the histology as 8540/3 [Paget disease] using rule H14.

 2007
20071008 Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: How is "invasive lobular carcinoma with signet ring cell features (95%) and ductal features (5%)" coded for a single tumor diagnosed prior to 2007?

For cases diagnosed 1/1/04-12/31/06, code histology to 8524 [Lobular mixed with other types of carcinoma]. Assuming there is no mention of in situ, Histology Coding Rule 3 applies: Use a mixed histology code if one exists

For cases diagnosed 2007-2014, 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.

 2007
20071066 Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: Can grade be coded from the pathology report for a recurrent bladder cancer specimen? See Discussion. In 2006 a TURB was done for bladder carcinoma diagnosed 10 years ago. Is grade always coded 9 on class 3 cases unless the original slides were reviewed?

Code grade from the original tumor; do not code grade from recurrence.

If the grade of the original primary tumor is specified, code it, regardless of class of case.

 2007
20071056 Reportability/Terminology--Prostate: Is the diagnosis of "atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma" sufficient to report a prostate cancer if a note states that there is "insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy"? See Discussion.

Date of report is July 2005. One positive specimen of 12.

Specimen 6: Diagnosis = Prostate tissue with a small focus of atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma. Note. There is insufficient cytologic and/or architectural atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy. Negative basal cell staining with cytokeratin... in atypical glands is consistent with the diagnosis of suspicious for adenocarcinoma. In addition, the diagnosis is suppported by a positive staining for alpha-methyl COA racemase (P504S), a recently discovered marker that is preferentially expressed in prostate cancer...

This case is reportable. The diagnosis states "suspicious for adenocarcinoma." "Suspicious for" is a reportable ambiguous term.

The additional stains supported this "suspicious" diagnosis. A more definitive diagnosis could not be made based on this specimen.

 2007