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: 06/28/2026 02:21 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20041091 Primary Site/Summary Stage 2000/EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: How are these fields coded when a CT Impression states: Large retroperitoneal/abdominal mass resulting in extra-hepatic biliary obstruction & bilateral urinary tract obstruction & encasement of major vessels most c/w lymphoma? See Discussion.

CT findings state: Very lg sft tiss mass encasing pancreatic head & portion of body, splenic & portal veins, celiac axis, sup mesenteric artery & bilateral renal veins. Two components to this mass: 1) retroperitoneal mass encasing great vessels and 2) peritoneal component 10.8cm size, displaces bowel & other structures & encases vessels.

If the physician stated "this is bulky disease" would that change the EOD?

For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:

Based on the information provided:

The topography code for this lymphoma is C772 [Intra-abdominal lymph nodes].

Code SEER Summary Stage 2000 to 5 [Regional NOS].

Code EOD Extension to 20. More than one lymph node region below the diaphragm is involved (retroperitoneal and peritoneal). The organs mentioned are not involved by the lymphoma. The bulk of the masses is causing obstruction by displacing and/or encasing organs.

A physician description of "bulky disease" would not change the EOD for this case.

 2004
20041096 Behavior Code--Breast: How is this field coded for a "non-invasive Paget disease of the breast?" See Discussion. Historically, SEER collected Paget Disease of the breast with a behavior code of 3 [invasive]. There is no documentation to support this. The SEER EOD Manual only states that if the code is "05" [Pagets disease (without underlying tumor)], the behavior must be a 2 [in situ] or a 3 [invasive].

Code the behavior as /2 [in situ] for noninvasive Paget disease of breast. Noninvasive is a synonym of in situ.

If the pathology report documents that the Paget disease is in situ, the matrix principle in ICD-O allows you to change the behavior code to match the pathologist's statement.

 2004
20041038 Reportability--Bladder: Is "low grade papillary urothelial neoplasm with no evidence of invasion" reportable to SEER? "Neoplasm" means "new growth," not malignancy. A low grade papillary urothelial NEOPLASM with no evidence of invasion [8130/1] is not reportable to SEER. However, a low grade papillary urothelial CARCINOMA with no evidence of invasion [8130/2] is reportable. 2004
20041037 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation--Thyroid: How many primaries, with what histologies should be coded when a thyroidectomy reveals "anaplastic carcinoma" and "papillary carcinoma" occurring as two separate tumors? See Discussion. Example: Thyroidectomy revealed anaplastic carcinoma of the thyroid with mets to lymph nodes. The path report stated that the thyroid specimen also contained a small papillary carcinoma. Differentiation for the papillary carcinoma was not stated.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Accession and code as two thyroid primaries:

Anaplastic carcinoma [8021/34]

Papillary carcinoma [8260/39]

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.

 2004
20041071 Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: When the histology from a lumpectomy differs from that of a core needle biopsy, should the lumpectomy histology be coded? See Discussion.

Histology - Page 85 of the SPM 2004, Histology Type Coding Instructions, #2. Use the histology stated in the final diagnosis from the pathology report. Use the pathology from the procedure that resected the majority of the primary tumor.

Based on this rule, should the following case should be coded to Ductal Carcinoma (8500/31)?

Core needle bx: WD Infiltrating Ductal Carcinoma with focal lobular features. Lumpectomy: WD Invasive Ductal Carcinoma.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Yes, code this case to 8500/31 [Well differentiated invasive ductal carcinoma]. Code the histology stated on the pathology report from the procedure removing the most tumor tissue. A lumpectomy will usually provide more tumor tissue than a core needle biopsy.

First, determine which specimen contains the most TUMOR tissue -- in this case the lumpectomy. Next, apply the histology coding rules to the diagnosis on that pathology report. The rationale is that a diagnosis from a smaller specimen will be less accurate and less representative of the true histology compared to a larger tumor specimen.

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.

 2004
20041065 Date Therapy Initiated/First-Course of Cancer-Directed Therapy Fields/Summary Stage 2000--Prostate: How do you code these fields for a case that received preventative chemo before a definitive cancer diagnosis? A patient has a "suspicious but not diagnostic" biopsy of the prostate in 09/2002. Doctor said it was not cancer and put the patient on a preventative chemo drug study (GTX-211). The patient returned for a repeat biopsy on 04/2003. Biopsy returned positive for adenocarcinoma. The patient had not been diagnosed when chemo was administered. Can the case be staged using the post-chemo information?

Stage this case the same as all other cases. Use only the information subsequent to the date of diagnosis to code stage and treatment.

The diagnosis date in the example is 04/2003. Do not use information prior to 04/2003 to code stage or treatment. Do not code the preventative chemo as treatment.

 2004
20041100 Sequence Number-central/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): What criteria are to be used to determine which primary site carries a worse prognosis? Should we take survival into consideration? See Discussion.

In the case of two or more simultaneously diagnosed primary tumors, instructions in the SEER manual state that the tumor with the worse prognosis is to be assigned the lower sequence number. Prognosis decisions should be based on primary site, histology and extent of disease.

Stage as a criteria for decision making is fairly straightforward. On the other hand, decisions based on primary site seem to be more subjective than objective.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Compare the combination of the primary site, histology and extent of disease for each primary, and assign the lowest sequence number to the primary with the worst prognosis. Do not use primary site or histology alone to determine prognosis in the case of assigning sequence number. Survival is a component of prognosis.

If there is no difference in prognosis, assign the sequence numbers in any order.

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.

 2004
20041022 Primary site/Histology (Pre-2007)/Behavior: What is the correct site and histology/behavior for the following diagnosis: "mucinous cystadenoma of the appendix with perforation and pseudomyxoma peritonei." This was diagnosed at e-lap for a separate adenocarcinoma of the ascending colon.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

The appropriate code for mucinous cystadenoma of the appendix with perforation and pseudomyxoma peritonei is C18.1 8470/0. It is not reportable to SEER. According to our pathologist consultant, mucinous cystadenoma is a legitimate term for such appendiceal tumors. They may implant all over the peritoneum as pseudomyxoma peritonei, especially in the face of perforation, without being histologically malignant.

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.

 2004
20041024

Ambiguous Terminology/Reportability: Is the phrase "indicative of cancer" SEER reportable?

No. The phrase "indicative of cancer" alone is not a definitive cancer diagnosis. The word "indicative" is not on the list of ambiguous terms that is equivalent to a diagnosis of cancer.

 2004
20041042 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Kidney: How many primaries, with what histology(ies) should be coded when nephrectomy pathology specimen shows separate tumors of "renal cell carcinoma [clear cell type]" and "renal cell carcinoma [granular cell type]"?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Abstract two primaries. This is an example of two tumors with different histologic types in the same site. The right kidney has two separate tumors.

8310/3 [renal cell carcinoma (clear cell type)]

8320/3 [renal cell carcinoma (granular cell type)]

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.

 2004