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: 09/16/2026 14:05 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20021030 Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: Why was the decision made not to code all "3-component differentiation systems" the same way that Bloom-Richardson is coded? For example, SEER codes a low grade BR to 1 for the Differentiation field and a low grade for other grading systems to 2. See discussion. Our Pathologist Consultant agrees with SEER's guideline to code the Bloom-Richardson and B&R modifications of low, intermediate and high to 1, 2 and 3 respectively and thinks all 3-component systems should be coded that same way because it better represents the differentiation of the tumor. In his opinion, coding all other 3-component systems to a differentiation of 2, 3 and 4 respectively, is overstating the degree of differentiation. The rules for coding histology are approved and used by all of the major standard setters through agreements reached in the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee. This issue is under review by our medical advisors and a special committee. Changes will be taken to the Uniform Data Standards Committee for review and approval. N/A N/A 2002
20021165 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--All Sites: Is there a hierarchy for using information from clinical tests (scans, radiography) to determine clinical tumor size? When the size on a radiographic report prior to pathologic diagnosis is smaller than the size of the tumor on the radiographic report that is post pathologic diagnosis, which tumor size should be used? See discussion.

Which size should be used for these examples?

1) Tumor size on a mammogram is smaller than the tumor size on an ultrasound.

2) CT of the lung reveals a 2.5 cm RUL malignancy in June. A biopsy in July confirms a malignancy. A CT is done in August prior to initiating RT which reveals a 3.1 cm RUL nodule.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Generally, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to the largest size identified in any scan. Use the largest tumor size for most cases. There is no hierarchy for multiple imaging studies, with the exception of the two situations represented in the question examples.

1). Code the size stated on the mammogram, even if that size is smaller than the one specified on the ultrasound. Generally the mammogram size is more accurate for breast cases than ultrasound.

2). Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 2.5 cm. In this example, the second scan was the same type as the first. Usually there is not that much of a difference in size between the same tests, unless the tumor has an aggressive histology. The example does not mention the histology. With certain histologies, such as small cell of the lung, a rapid growth in a short amount of time is the normal process. The fact that the size increased that much in a short period of time, using the same type of scan, is an indication of a rapidly growing tumor. It would be better to use the size on the initial scan to code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor.

 N/A N/A 2002
20021158 Multiple Primaries/Histology--Lymphoma: What is the primary site(s) for a patient who had a lymph node biopsy with the histology of "large B cell lymphoma arising in the setting of low grade B cell lymphoma c/w marginal zone B cell lymphoma with plasmacytic features"? See discussion. This patient also had a bone marrow biopsy that demonstrated "low grade B cell lymphoma." Per the clinician, "Pt with discordant lymphoma. We will be approaching his lymphoma as two different diseases. The large B cell had cleared after chemotherapy and radiation therapy. The low grade lymphoma is incurable."

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

Code as two primaries with each arising in lymph nodes [C77._]. The histology for the first primary is 9699/3 [marginal zone B cell lymphoma]. The histology for the second primary is 9680/3 [large B cell lymphoma].

For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, 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.

 Lymphoma Histology 2002
20021178 Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "poorly differentiated invasive transitional cell carcinoma with extensive squamous and focal glandular differentiation"?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8120/33 [transitional cell carcinoma, NOS, poorly differentiated]. The ICD-O-3 does not have a separate code for transitional cell carcinoma with squamous and/or glandular differentiation.

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.

 N/A Histology 2002
20021031 Primary Site--Meninges: Should the primary site for a meningioma of the right frontal lobe be coded to C71.1 or C70.0? See discussion. In the opinion of some neurologists it is more important to capture the lobe in which the meningioma is located rather than code the primary site to meninges. Should a meningioma always be coded to meninges for primary site? Code the Primary Site field to C70.0 [cerebral meninges], the suggested site code for most meningiomas. Meningiomas arise from the meninges, not the brain (although they can invade brain). ICD-O-3 does not differentiate the specific location of the brain that the meninges cover. The information of interest to neurologists would have to be captured in an optional or user-defined field. Brain and CNS Primary site 2002
20021066 Histology: How do we code this field when a less representative specimen has a more specific morphology? See discussion. Example: Biopsy revealed endometrioid adenocarcinoma and the resection demonstrated adenocarcinoma, NOS. Do we code histology per the most representative sample, or to the more specific morphology?

Code the histology using the pathology report from the most representative specimen, even if that histology is less specific.

For the case example above, code 8140 [adenocarcinoma, NOS].

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.

 N/A Histology 2002
20020014 Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: Can the WHO grade be used to code differentiation for bladder primaries? No, the WHO grade is not used to code differentiation for bladder primaries. Bladder N/A 2002
20021149 EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: In the absence of a clear surgical or pathologic description of how the salivary gland involvement relates to the head and neck primary, do we code the involvement as direct extension, further extension or metastasis? See discussion. A composite resection of tonsillar mass and a modified radical neck dissection is performed. According to the pathology report: Squamous cell carcinoma involvement of tonsil with invasion of skeletal muscle. A separate specimen labeled "tumor" indicates a salivary gland is also involved with tumor. Neck dissection: 1 lymph node with metastasis.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

In the absence of a clear statement that the gland was involved by direct extension, code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [Metastasis]. In this case, the salivary gland tumor was described as a "separate specimen" that contained the salivary gland. The extension does not appear to be contiguous for this case.

If the salivary gland involvement had been by direct extension, which would be assumed if there had been contiguous involvement of the gland with the primary site, then code the EOD-Extension field to 80 [Further extension]. If there had been direct extension, the surgeon probably would not have dissected through the tumor. The resection specimens would have been contiguous.

 Head & Neck N/A 2002
20021026 Surgery of Primary Site--Skin: Should Mohs surgery be code to 27 [Excisional biopsy] or 31 [Shave biopsy followed by a gross excision of the lesion]? See discussion. Under surgery coding in the 5/22/01 SEER Abstractor/Coder Workshop book, page 20, it states that Mohs surgery should be coded as an excisional biopsy. The ACoS I&R dated 6/6/2001 states that it should be coded to 31. For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 34 [Mohs surgery, NOS], 35 [Mohs with 1-cm margin or less] or 36 [Mohs with more than 1-cm margin]. Skin Surgery of Primary Site 2002
20021082

Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Primary site/EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: How many primaries are represented by an invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the floor of mouth with in situ squamous cell carcinoma involvement of the frenulum?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Primary Site field to C04.9 [floor of mouth]. Because the cancer did not INVADE into a neighboring site (through wall, through soft tissue), it just spread along the mucosa (in situ) to involve the frenulum, this is one primary.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, in situ extension via mucosal spread to the frenulum is ignored for purposes of coding EOD-Extension.

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.

 Head & Neck N/A 2002