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: 12/20/2025 04:06 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20020060 Terminology/EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Lung: Can the term "opacity" be used to code the size of the primary lung tumor when it is given a size in an imaging study but the "opacity" is not referred to as being suspicious for cancer? See discussion. Example: How do you code tumor size for a lung primary in which the patient had a CT of the chest that describes a "4 cm opacity in the RUL of the lung." A biopsy of the RUL lung is positive for carcinoma? Would your answer be different if the opacity was described as being "suspicious for carcinoma"?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 999 [Not stated] for the example given above. However, if the opacity was described as a "mass" or as "suspicious for cancer," the size could be coded to 040 [4 cm].

 2002
20020054

Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Ovary: Are mucinous cystic tumors of low malignant potential diagnosed in the left ovary in 12/2000 and in the right ovary in 7/2001 reportable as two primaries? See discussion.

Page 14 of the SEER Program Code Manual, 3rd Edition, states that bilateral retinoblastomas and bilateral Wilms tumor are always single primaries whether simultaneous or not. Does this apply to bilateral ovarian tumors as well?

For cases diagnosed 2001-2006:

Borderline tumors are not reportable to SEER as of 2001. If you are collecting them in your registry, use the following procedure: Exception 1 in the SEER Program Code Manual, 3rd Edition, responds to the issue of processing ovarian tumors. Simultaneously occurring ovarian tumors with a single histology are coded as one primary. In the case you cite, the right ovary primary occurred 7 months after the left ovary primary. This is not simultaneous, so it would be counted as a second primary.

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.

 2002
20021197 Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery--Breast: How should this field be coded when a mastectomy that removed 3 sentinel lymph nodes is later followed by an axillary lymph node dissection that removed 17 lymph nodes? Should all of the lymph node information be coded to this field, even though the Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Examined field will be coded to the number of lymph nodes from the most definitive surgery (17)?

For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Yes, all of the lymph node information should be coded to the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field using code 7 [Sentinel node biopsy and code 3, 4, or 5 at different times].

The Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Examined field no longer exists for this time frame.

 2002
20021053 EOD-Extension--Pancreas: How would you code extension for the following non-surgically treated pancreas primaries? None of these cases has TNM staging to assist with classifying the extent of disease. See discussion.

1) CT scan: Cystic lesion in body of pancreas. Discharge dx: pancreas ca.

2) Discharge dx: CBD obstruction due to probable early ca in head of pancreas.

3) CT scan: mass involves the head and body of the pancreas. No evidence of abdominal mets. Discharge dx: Locally advanced pancreatic ca.

4) H&P: Pt with splenomegaly probably secondary to splenic vein thrombosis and a large ca of the tail of pancreas. Imp: Advanced pancreatic ca of the tail of pancreas. Would you code extension to splenic vein [56]?

5) H&P: Pancreatic ca with extension or mets into porta hepatis. (Would you assume direct extension or mets?)

6) CT scan: Pancreas ca. Significant peritoneal implants. (Would you assume the implants to be related to the pancreas primary and code as involvement?)

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

The information provided for these pancreatic primary examples is very limited. Additional information should be sought. If not available, code the EOD-Extension field to:

1) 10

2) 10

3) 10

4) 99

5) Assuming primary in head, body or tail of pancreas, 76

6) 85

 2002
20021179 Primary Site/EOD Fields--Head & Neck: In the absence of an actual resection and a pathologic evaluation of the affected area, would a laryngoscopy or CT scan provide a better assessment of the EOD and the primary site?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

For Primary Site and EOD, CT information has higher priority than laryngoscopy. The CT scan gives a better picture of the involvement of the deeper tissues. A laryngoscopy falls into the "physical exam" category more than the "operative" category. The laryngoscopy report is not an "operative" report like those generated from a surgical procedure.

 2002
20021185 Surgery of Primary Site--Major salivary gland: How do you code Surgery of Primary Site for a submandibular gland primary when the operative report refers only to an excision of the submandibular "tumor" while the pathology report states the submandibular "gland" was removed? See discussion. The gross description on the pathology report indicates that the specimen consists of a "submandibular gland." A further description on the pathology report included, "the specimen was sectioned exposing a focally cystic mass that nearly replaces the entire specimen." For cases diagnosed on 1/1/2003 or after: Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 40 [Total parotidectomy, NOS; total removal of major salivary gland, NOS], per the pathology report's gross description of the specimen unless the operative report description of procedure indicates that the removal was less than total. 2002
20021136 Date of Diagnosis/Histology (Pre-2007): How should we code these fields for "atypical fibroxanthoma" of the left cheek diagnosed in October 1999 that is followed by a June 2000 punch biopsy with a microscopic description in the pathology report of "superficial form of malignant fibrous histiocytoma"? See discussion. Should the diagnosis date for the malignant fibrous histiocytoma be October 1999 because it is called "residual/recurrent atypical fibroxanthoma" in the June 2000 final diagnosis of pathology report? In the microscopic description it is called a "malignant fibrous histiocytoma." Per an August 2000 outpatient note, "The patient probably has malignant fibrous histiocytoma. His course has been more aggressive than that seen with an atypical fibroxanthoma."

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8830/3 [Malignant fibrous histiocytoma]. Code the Date of Diagnosis to October 1999 based on the clinician's statement of "The patient probably has malignant fibrous histiocytoma. His course has been more aggressive than that seen with an atypical fibroxanthoma." Assume that this statement means that the physician re-evaluated the clinical course and decided that the original tumor must have been malignant.

If the original slides are reviewed and the diagnosis is changed to a malignancy or if the clinician states that the first occurrence was obviously malignant, backdate the date of diagnosis to the first occurrence.

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.

 2002
20020003 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can you code the tumor size if you have the aggregate size given for two or more tumor masses?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

No. Never code the aggregate size in the Size of Primary Tumor field when the pieces removed come from TWO OR MORE tumors. If there is a clinical statement regarding the size of two or more tumors, code this field to the size of the largest tumor.

The aggregate size can only be used to code the Size of Primary Tumor field when the PATHOLOGIST estimates the size of the tumor from the pieces of ONE tumor removed by the surgeon.

 2002
20021200 Date of Diagnosis: How do you code this field when the pathologic confirmation is delayed for 2 months because the clinician decides to "watch and see what happens" to a CT identified mass thought to be either a "metastasis from a previously diagnosed malignancy or a new primary"? Code the Date of Diagnosis field to the date of the scan. This is the earliest date that a recognized medical practitioner said the patient had cancer. The diagnosis on the CT scan was a malignancy. The only question was whether the mass on the scan was metastatic or a primary. 2002
20021098 Histology (Pre-2007)--All Sites: What code is used to represent the histology with a final diagnosis of adenocarcinoma, signet ring type when the comment suggests a "mixed histologic pattern"? See discussion. The following is the comment from the pathology report: "The histologic features reveal a tumor with a mixed histologic pattern. A diffuse infiltrate of signet ring cells and a second pattern of amphophilic polygonal cells. The latter elements suggest neuroendocrine differentiation, but IHC stains fail to reveal endocrine attributes in these cells."

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8490/3 [Signet ring cell adenocarcinoma]. Code the specific subtype when the diagnosis says "generic carcinoma, something type." Neuroendocrine differentiation was suspected, but not supported by the IHC stains. A combination code is not appropriate for this example.

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.

 2002