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: 02/28/2026 21:15 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20031119 EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Colon: For this primary, under which field are satellite tumor nodules in mesenteric adipose tissue coded? See Description.

Sigmoid colon, low anterior resection: Invasive adenocarcinoma, 5.5 cm greastest dimension, moderately differentiated. Tumor invades through muscularis propria, into mesenteric adipose tissue. No penetration of visceral peritoneum. Proximal, distal, and radial margins free of tumor. Satellite tumor nodule present within mesenteric adipose tissue, 1.5 cm diameter, located 2.8 cm from main bowel wall tumor. Ten lymph nodes identified, with no evidence of metastatic tumor.

Comment: The satellite tumor nodule present within the mesenteric adipose tissue has an infiltrating, irregular contoured appearance and does not appear to represent a previously replaced lymph node. This appears to be a local metastasis with histologic features most commonly associated with venous invasion (see AJCC Cancer Staging Handbook, Sixth Edition, 2002, page 131 for current staging terminology).

 For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: For EOD, each grossly detectable nodule in the regional mesenteric fat is counted as one regional lymph node. 2003
20031002 Histology (Pre-2007)--Cervix: Is 8384/3 [adenocarcinoma, endocervical type] a specific histology type that must be stated or does it apply to any adenocarcinoma arising in the endocervical? Should the ICD-O-3 histology code of 8384/3 [Adenocarcinoma, endocervical type] be used for final diagnoses of "adenocarcinoma of the endocervix" or "adenocarcinoma of the cervix"?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Histology code 8384 is for adenocarcinoma of endocervical type. This specific type (endocervical) must be part of the diagnosis in order to assign code 8384. This histology code is not to be used for Adenocarcinoma, NOS of the endocervix or cervix.

Adenocarcinoma of endocervical type can be diagnosed in other tissues and if so it will be stated as endocervical type. Adenoca of the endocervix would be coded to plain Adenoca.

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.

 2003
20031016

Surgery of Primary Site--Head & Neck: Will you clarify the use of code 20 [local tumor excision, NOS] versus code 27 [excisional biopsy] when there is no clinical description of a tumor and the pathology report describes more than one specimen from surgery performed on the vocal cords? See discussion.

Specimen A is labeled vocal cord biopsy. Specimen B is labeled left true vocal cord nodule. For specimen B the gross portion of the pathology report describes a .5 cm tissue portion. Is the term "nodule" enough information to code this as an excision? Can we code site specific surgery to code 20 or 27?

Code 20 [local tumor excision, NOS] based on information from the size and description of the specimen.

 2003
20031006 EOD/Surgery of Primary Site--Melanoma: If a melanoma primary site is other than skin, vulva, penis, or scrotum should these fields be coded using melanoma schemes? See discussion. Should a melanoma of the cervix be coded using the melanoma or the cervix schemes for these fields? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Use the EOD and surgery code schemes for cervix uteri. The EOD scheme for melanoma excludes melanoma of the cervix uteri. The surgery code scheme for skin excludes cervix uteri. 2003
20031039

EOD-Clinical Extension--Liver: How do the segments of the liver described by AJCC Manual correspond to the lobes of the liver described by the SEER EOD Manual? See Description.

CT described hepatocellular ca involvement of the liver with nodules identified in segments 5 and 7. Would EOD-extension be coded to 30 [multiple tumors (one lobe)]?

Segments 2, 3, and 4 correspond to the left lobe of the liver. Segments 5, 6, 7 and 8 correspond to the right lobe of the liver. Segment 1 is the caudate lobe, which has completely different drainage and vascularization, is separate from the larger right and left lobes.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Since segments 5 and 7 are both in the right lobe, assign EOD-extension code 30 for the case above, unless there is mention of vascular invasion. Be sure to record the size of the largest primary tumor.

Tumor size and vascular invasion are the most important factors for AJCC 6th edition staging.

 2003
20031205 EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined: How are these fields coded when an autopsy report reveals pathologically involved regional lymph nodes but does not state how many nodes were positive nor how many were examined? See Description. A final autopsy report described widely disseminated adenocarcinoma, probably lung primary. Metastatic tumor in brain, lungs, and in lymph nodes. The Gross description of the autopsy report stated that there were numerous metastases to hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes. The Micro description of the autopsy report did not add any clarification. In the absence of a stated number of lymph nodes, the options for coding number of regional lymph nodes examined are codes 96-98. These codes include descriptions of surgical procedures such as sampling and dissection. How do we code number of regional lymph nodes examined when the pathological examination of lymph nodes was done only at autopsy and not during a surgical procedure?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The rules that apply to the use of pathology reports for EOD coding also apply to autopsy reports.

When a cancer diagnosis is made and positive lymph nodes are discovered on autopsy, in the absence of a stated number of lymph nodes, code the number of lymph nodes positive to 97 [Positive nodes but number of positive nodes not specified]. Code the number of lymph nodes examined to 97 [Regional lymph node removal documented as dissection and number of lymph nodes unknown/not stated]. An autopsy is a dissection.

 2003
20031091 EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate/Lymphoma: How is this field coded for a prostatic lymphoma? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Do not code the prostate pathologic extent of disease field for prostatic lymphoma. Leave the path extension for prostate field blank. Code the extent of disease using the lymphoma scheme. Use ONLY the lymphoma scheme - do NOT try to code both lymphoma and prostate extension fields for prostatic lymphoma. 2003
20031055

Histology (Pre-2007)/Primary Site/Diagnostic Confirmation: How would these fields be coded for a diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma based on clinical findings only? See Discussion.

We have a case of reported "cholangiocarcinoma" of the liver diagnosed only by a CT of the abdomen. There is no pathologic confirmation. CT ABD: Heterogeneous liver mass suspicious for cholangiocarcinoma; mass causes right portal & right hepatic vein occlusion & right and left biliary duct dilatation....

Should this be coded to cholangiocarcinoma by radiology alone and should it be liver as primary site?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code according to the prevailing medical opinion in this case. If no further information can be obtained, code as cholangiocarcinoma of the intrahepatic bile duct.

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.

 2003
20031034

Histology (Pre-2007)--Kidney, renal pelvis: What codes are used to represent the histologies of 1) "renal papillary (chromophil) carcinoma" and 2) "chromophil renal cell carcinoma?"

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code "chromophil" to 8260 [papillary renal cell]. According to our pathologist consultant, in the case of chromophil, most authors regard this as more or less synonymous with papillary renal cell [8260]. "More or less" because papillary is an old term descriptive of the microscopic structure, while chromophil is newer and based on the cytology; because most of the latter are papillary the current usage assumes them to be equivalent.

1) The diagnosis "renal papillary (chromophil) carcinoma" tells us that the pathologist who wrote it was seeing both pattern and cytologic features, and is regarding papillary equivalent to chromophil; thus, code to 8260.

2) Code "chromophil renal cell carcinoma" to 8260.

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.

 2003
20031174 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Recurrence--Breast: Has SEER established a priority of medical opinions to determine the number of primaries or a time parameter establishing recurrence? When a pathologist and a physician refer to the subsequent reappearence in the same breast as both "recurrence" and "new primary"? See Description.

Example 1. Patient was diagnosed with right breast cancer in 1999 and underwent lumpectomy followed by radiation therapy. In 2001, patient was again found to have right breast cancer and was admitted for mastectomy. The surgeon stated that this was recurrence. The patient's primary care physician stated the patient had a new primary. Is there a priority order if the multiple physicians involved in a patient's care do not agree on the diagnosis?

Example 2. Patient was diagnosed in 1998 with left breast cancer. In 2000, the patient again was diagnosed with left breast cancer. There was no mention of recurrence so case was accessioned as a second primary. In 2003, patient was again admitted for an unrelated disease. In the H&P, the physician stated that the patient had recurrent breast cancer in 2000. Do we remove the second primary from our file based on this statement three years later?

Example 3. Patient was diagnosed with Paget's disease with intraductal carcinoma, left breast, in 1997. In August 2002, patient underwent left mastectomy for DCIS, left breast. In November 2002, patient's oncologist stated that patient had been on Evista for 5 years and had recurrent cancer despite Evista. Do we accession this as one or two primaries?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Use the best information available. In general, information from the time closest to the event in question is more accurate than later information. The opinion of the pathologist tends to be the most valuable. Beyond that, SEER has not established a hierarchy of physician opinions.

Be aware that a physician's use of the term "recurrence" does not always mean that the second tumor originated from cells from the first tumor.

Examples 1, 2 & 3. Follow SEER rules for determining multiple primaries. In each case, the diagnoses are more than two months apart. Abstract as two primaries.

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.

 2003