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: 02/15/2026 02:12 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
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
20041099 First Course Treatment: If a patient makes a blanket refusal of all recommended therapy or refuses all treatment before any therapy was recommended, are only immunotherapy and hematologic/endocrine therapies to be coded as refused (code 87)? Or should all treatment modalities be coded as refused if a patient makes a blanket refusal? Or should none of the treatment modalities be coded as refused because we do not know what would have been recommended? See Discussion. Coding instructions for immunotherapy and for hematologic/endocrine procedures state that Code 87 is to be assigned if either of the following circumstances apply: 1) If the patient made a blanket refusal of all recommended treatment. 2) If the patient refused all treatment before any was recommended. These instructions are not included for other treatment modalities. When the patient refuses treatment, the first course of therapy is no treatment. Code all treatments as refused. 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
20041079 CS Mets at Dx/CS Mets Eval--Colon: Would the metastasis field be coded to 00 [No; none] and the evaluation field be coded to 1 [No path exam of metastatic tissue performed.] when the source of information is from the operative findings for the following 6 different cases? 1) Liver normal; 2) No evidence of metastatic disease; mesentery normal, 3) Small ascites; no liver metastasis, mass adherent to duodenum without obvious invasion, 4) No mets or local invasion, 5) No evidence of carcinomatosis, peritoneal studding or malignant effusion and 6) Tumor adherent to lateral sidewall (path negative); no evidence of metastatic implants.

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.

The CS Mets Eval code refers to the method used to evaluate the site farthest from the primary site. The correct code may not be the highest eval code. For example 1 above, if the liver is the site farthest from the colon primary that was evaluated for distant mets, code the CS Mets Eval code to the method used to evaluate liver. Code surgical evaluation as 1.

Assuming this is all of the information about possible distant metastatic sites for the examples above, code CS Mets at DX as 00, and CS Mets Eval as 1 for each.

Please note: imaging of farther sites should also be included when CS Mets at DX is coded. For example, if there was also a negative chest X-ray, the CS Mets at DX field would be 00 but the CS Mets Eval field would be 0 because the CXR documents that there are no mets beyond the immediate area of the tumor.

 2004
20041066

Reportability/Date of Diagnosis--Ovary: Is a patient SEER reportable in 2001 or 2003 if she presented with a diagnosis of papillary serous tumor of low malignant potential [borderline tumor] per the 5/2001 surgery but at the time of the planned second look laparoscopic surgery is stated to have Stage 3A ovarian cancer? See Discussion.

A patient was seen in 5/2001 for large pelvic mass growing from right ovary. After TAH and USO and partial omemtectomy, path diagnosis was papillary serous tumor of low malignant potential (borderline tumor), unruptured. Right ovary and omental implant have identical histologic appearance, except the psammoma body formation and the ovary does not.

Patient does not return for lap as planned in 6-12 months.

In 1/03 she returns to hospital with abdominal pain and has debulking, hemicolectomy and Hartmann's procedure. 1/03 Path report "metastatic papillary serous adenoca." Chart now says "History of stage 3A ovarian cancer."

Yes, this case is reportable in 2003. Malignancy was confirmed in 2003. The diagnosis made in 2001 is not reportable for that year, and was not reviewed or revised according to the information provided.

 2004
20041078

Ambiguous Terminology: Is the expression "has the markings of a malignancy" a clinically reportable term? See Discussion.

12/02 Baseline mammogram: spiculated mass with associated marked retraction located in UOQ lt breast. This has the markings of malignancy. Several microcalcifications in outer aspect of rt breast. BI-RADS 5 higly suggestive of malignancy.

Do not accession cases using only the term "has the markings of malignancy." This term is not on the list of ambiguous terms that are reportable. If the term does not appear on either the reportable or not reportable list, the term is not diagnostic of cancer. Do not accession the case.

Please see SINQ 20010094 in reference to BI-RADS terminology.

 2004
20041070 Primary Site: What would the primary site be for carcinoma of the renal pelvis, status post transplant? Please see details below. See Discussion. The patient has a renal pelvis urothelial carcinoma confined to the pelvis but is status post renal pelvic transplant of the same renal pelvis. Code the primary site to renal pelvis [C659]. Code the site in which the primary tumor originated. The transplant status in this example does not affect the primary site. 2004
20041087 CS Extension--Head of Pancreas: What code is used to represent extension to the superior mesenteric artery? See Discussion. In the CS coding scheme for Head of Pancreas, superior mesenteric artery is listed under both code 54 (T3) and 60 (T4).

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.

Assign code 60 for a primary in the head of the pancreas extending to the superior mesenteric artery. CS Extension code 54 should be Superior mesenteric VEIN and code 60 should be Superior mesenteric ARTERY. An errata will be issued by CS. In addition, extension 54 indicates resectable disease and code 60 is not resectable.

 2004
20041055 Primary Site/Grade, Differentiation, Cell indicator--Lymphoma: Will a Grade, Differentiation code of 6 [B-cell] for a lymphoma coded to primary site C80.9 [unknown] fail edits? See Discussion. Patient had a large mass in chest wall that was excised and found to be large B cell lymphoma. Scans mentioned no involvement of lymph nodes but indicated nodules in the liver thought to be lymphoma as well.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:The combination of a primary site C809 with a Grade, Differentiation code of 6 when used for a lymphoma will not fail SEER edits. Avoid coding primary site to C809 when possible. Code primary site for the example above to C761 [Chest wall, NOS]. The chest wall is the only area of involvement, except for "liver nodules." Liver is an unlikely primary site for 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.

 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