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: 02/12/2026 17:08 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20051006 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Thyroid: How is histology coded for the tumor(s) that exist when the thyroidectomy addendum diagnosis is "Morphologic and IHC evaluations reveal two tumors: papillary thyroid carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma." See Discussion. The original final diagnosis after a thyroidectomy is "papillary carcinoma of the thyroid with an adjacent invasive squamous cell carcinoma, moderately differentiated." Per the additional addendum comment: "The findings can be interpreted in one of 2 different ways. Either there is a collision tumor of papillary thyroid and squamous cell carcinoma (with the squamous cell ca originating at a site other than the thyroid gland.) Or, less likely, there is a malignant squamous differentiation in the papillary thyroid carcinoma." A university hospital consultation report states the diagnosis as: "Spindle cell squamous cell carcinoma arising in association and from papillary carcinoma, predominantly tall cell variant..." Is this 2 thyroid primaries: 8344/3 [papillary carcinoma, tall cell] and 8074/3 [squamous cell carcinoma, spindle cell]?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Our pathologist consultant agrees with the consultant's diagnosis. Therefore, abstract this as one primary of the thyroid. Code the histology as 8344 [Papillary tall cell]. This is the most appropriate histology code available for this complex case.

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.

 2005
20051094 Grade, Differentiation/Priorities: Which has priority, the differentiation or the nuclear grade for a liver biopsy histology described as "well differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma, nuclear grade 3/4"? For most sites, differentiation has priority over the nuclear grade when both are specified (excluding breast and kidney). Assign grade code 1 [well differentiated] to the example above. 2005
20051066

CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: Explain the difference among SSF4 prostate codes 150 [No clinical involvement of prostatic apex & prostatectomy apex extension unknown], 510 [Clinical involvement of prostatic apex unknown & No prostatectomy apex extension], and 550 [Clinical involvement of prostatic apex unknown & prostatectomy apex extension unknown].

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.Site Specific Factor 4 captures the status of clinical apex involvement and prostatectomy apex involvement. The first digit in codes 110-550 indicates the clinical status of apex involvement. The second digit indicates apex involvement found at prostatectomy. The third digit is always zero. For both first and second digits, the codes and definitions are the same:

1 - No involvement of prostatic apex

2 - Into prostatic apex/arising in prostatic apex, NOS

3 - Arising into prostatic apex

4 - Extension into prostatic apex

5 - Apex extension unknown

Code 150 = No clinical involvement of prostatic apex & prostatectomy apex extension unknown

Code 510 = Clinical involvement of prostatic apex unknown & No prostatectomy apex extension

Code 550 = Clinical involvement of prostatic apex unknown & prostatectomy apex extension unknown

 2005
20051135 2004 SEER Manual Errata/CS Tumor Size--Can the Determining Descriptive Tumor Size information, on page 6 in the SEER EOD Manual, January 1998, be used to code descriptive tumor size in Collaborative Stage?

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 the instructions in the CS Manual, Appendix 1, page 62. This information will be added to the 2004 SEER manual in the next update.

Do not use the Determining Descriptive Tumor Size information from EOD for CS Tumor Size.

 2005
20051035 Reportability--Brain and CNS: Does a case of astrogliosis meet the criteria for gliomatosis cerebri? See Discussion.

Case clinically stated to be a glioma of the brain. Pathology from resection states astrogliosis.

Anderson's Pathology defines astrogliosis as astrocytic proliferations. Gliomatosis cerebri is defined as diffuse neoplastic transformation of poorly differentiated astrocytes over a wide area; predominantly invovles hemispheric white matter.

 The pathologic diagnosis for this case, astrogliosis, is not reportable to SEER. Take the definitive diagnosis for this case from the pathology report from the resection. The pathology report takes precendence over the clinical diagnosis. 2005
20051116 Primary Site--Soft Tissue: How is the primary site coded for a PNET found in the groin when the Tumor Board states the primary is unknown but the SEER site/histology validation table does not allow a site of C809 or C76x to be coded in combination with the histology of 9473/3?

Code site to C495 [connective tissue of pelvis, groin].

This was not called metastatic PNET and no other site of disease is noted. PNET is a broad classification of a group of tumors that usually occur in the CNS and can also occur in soft tissue (neuroblastoma, extra-osseous Ewing sarcoma).

 2005
20051143 CS Extension--Prostate: Can the EOD Manual clarifications regarding apparent and inapparent tumors be used to determine CS clinical extension for prostate primaries?

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.Do not use the EOD information to determine apparent and inapparent when coding Collaborative Stage for tumors diagnosed 1/1/2004 or later.

The August 2007 CoC Flash stated that "After consultation with the AJCC curators for genitourinary disease, the CS Steering Committee has determined that the SEER list of terms for apparent and inapparent in the SEER Extent of Disease Manual is NOT to be used for interpreting reports for Collaborative Staging. While it was a convenient tool for registrars, the curators are of the opinion that the use of the list will lead to misinterpretation of reports. Rather, the curators recommend that registrars rely on a direct physician statement of apparent or inapparent disease for Collaborative Staging."

August 2007 CoC Flash: http://www.facs.org/cancer/cocflash/august07.pdf, Coding Prostate Cancer: A Message from the Collaborative Staging Steering Committee.

 2005
20051109 CS Site Specific Factor/Terminology--Breast: Does the term "focal areas" of in situ carcinoma qualify as "minimal" in situ component when coding SSF6 field (assessment of the invasive and in situ components present) in the CS breast scheme?

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, the term "focal areas" of in situ carcinoma describes a minimal in situ component.

 2005
20051027 Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: If the only indication of grade for a bladder primary is "grade 2, NOS," and we do not know the grading system being used by the pathologist, is the numeric grade 2 coded?

See the General Coding Rules on page 92 of the 2004 SEER Manual for instructions about coding grade.

If the only information available is "Grade 2," assign code 2 [Grade II].

 2005
20051063 Primary Site/CS Tumor Size/CS Extension--Lung: How are these fields coded when a chest CT for lung cancer documents multiple masses in different lobes of the lung? See Discussion.

Example

Chest CT: "Almost complete consolidation of RUL and superior segment of RLL, highly suspicious for malignancy and represents primary bronchogenic carcinoma until proven otherwise. Multiple pulmonary masses bilaterally consistent with metastatic disease."

The physician describes multiple masses throughout RLL and LLL of lung suspicious for met disease, particularly lesion in LLL measuring 2.5 cm. The 2 cm mass in right lung abuts pleura, another mass in RLL measures 2.5 cm, smaller nodules in RLL and another 1 cm lesion abuts the pleura. Bx of a rt supraclavicular LN is positive for met carcinoma c/w lung primary.

Would primary site be coded to RLL because the scan states that the lesions on the right side represent primary bronchogenic carcinoma until proven otherwise and the 2.5 cm lesion in the RLL is the location of the largest tumor on the right? Or should site be coded to right lung, NOS and size to unknown because there is no clear statement as to which lesion on the right represents the primary tumor? If the site is lung, NOS, would CS Extension be coded to 65 to describe the multiple nodules in the RLL?

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.Based on the information provided:

Code primary site C349 [Lung]. Code laterality 1 [Right]. Code CS Tumor Size 999 [Unknown]. Code CS Extension 65 [Separate tumor nodules, same lobe]. Code CS Mets at Dx 39 [Separate tumor nodule in contralateral lung].

 2005