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: 10/18/2025 12:32 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021077 Histology (Pre-2007)/Primary Site/EOD-Extension--All Sites: How do you code these fields for a resected thyroid that is negative for any diagnostic abnormality and a left ovary that demonstrates "papillary thyroid carcinoma arising in a cystic teratoma"? See discussion. Teratomas occurring in the ovaries frequently contain various types of fully differentiated tissue that normally occur in other body parts. Should the primary be coded to the ovary or to the organ in which that type of tissue normally occurs?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Primary Site field to the organ in which the cancer arose. For this tumor, code the Primary Site field to C56.9 [ovary] and Histology to 8260/3 [papillary carcinoma of thyroid]. Use the ovary EOD for tumors diagnosed 1998-2003.

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
20021087 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Head & Neck: How many primaries are represented when a1998 invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the true vocal cord is followed by a 1999 diagnosis of in situ squamous cell carcinoma of the true vocal cord (called "recurrent" by the clinician), and in 2001 there is another invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the true vocal cord (no statement of recurrence)? Would your answer be any different if no statement of "recurrent" had been made in 1999?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code this case as two primaries, an invasive true vocal cord primary in 1998 and another invasive true vocal cord primary in 2001.

If there had been no statement of recurrence for the 1999 in situ diagnosis and the 1999 diagnosis was more than two months following the 1998 diagnosis, this case would be coded as three 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.

 2002
20020035

First Course Treatment--Lymphoma: How should an antibiotic regimen such as bismuth or omeprazole, amoxicillin, and metronidazole be coded for a MALT lymphoma of the stomach associated with Helicobacter pylori infection? See discussion.

If we do not count the antibiotic regimen as cancer-directed treatment but this is the only treatment given and the lymphoma disappears, is it problematic to have a cancer status of "no disease" recorded in a patient that supposedly was not "treated"?

Do not code antibiotic regimens as Cancer-Directed Therapy. These drugs are intended to treat the bacteria and not the cancer. This type of treatment is ancillary even if it is the only type of treatment given. You may designate a user-defined field to capture this information if desired. The coding combination of a cancer status of "no disease" and all treatment fields coded to "no treatment" is allowable.

 2002
20021052

EOD-Extension--Pancreas: Should these terms be ignored when coding extension to 10 or 30, or do they indicate involvement for non-surgically treated pancreas primaries?

1) Stricture of the common bile duct

2) Common bile duct is narrowed

3) Common bile duct is obstructed

4) Common bile duct dilation

5) Malignant stricture of the common bile duct

6) Ampullary or common bile duct stricture with a negative biopsy or brush.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Ignore these terms when coding extension to 10 or 30. These terms do not verify involvement by pancreatic cancer of the organs mentioned. Other non-malignant circumstances could cause these conditions.

 2002
20021150 SEER Guidelines Over Time: Should we apply the current guidelines to previously missed older cases now being reported to the central registry? See discussion.

1. We receive "straggler" cases for coding that were diagnosed when previous coding schemes and guidelines were applicable. When a specific guideline is in place for a given time period and is later changed in some way, we try to use the specific guideline that was in place at the time of diagnosis when coding the incoming case. However, it is not always possible to remember or to be able to access those old guidelines.

2. There are situations when coding old cases that have no applicable guideline for the older diagnosis years but current SEER documentation informs the coder how to handle the situation. For example, in the SEER Program Code Manual (3rd ed), 3 new guidelines were added for coding of differentiation. There were no guidelines in the previous SEER manual that specifically covered those situations. Should we use the current rules in coding differentiation on the older incoming case?

 Code all fields according to the instructions that were in effect at the time the case was diagnosed. If the old guidelines are unavailable or non-existent, code the case in the current scheme. The year the case was abstracted will indicate that the case was a late entry into the system and that could account for the differences in coding seen by a reviewer. 2002
20020030 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: 1) Can we add "Imaging studies" to those EOD schemes that currently do not include this on their priority list for coding size? 2) When an EOD scheme already lists specific types of imaging studies, are we limited to only those types of procedures or can any imaging study be used to code size? See discussion. How do we determine where to add "imaging studies" to the priority listing? Currently the hierarchy differs for primaries that currently include imaging studies on their EOD schemes. For example, on the breast EOD imaging ranks lower than the physical exam while on the thyroid EOD imaging ranks higher than the physical exam.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

1) You may add "Imaging" to the size priority list for all EOD schemes that currently do not include it. Prioritize it just above the physical exam for these sites.

2) You may use the information from any imaging technique to code tumor size, even for those sites such as breast and bladder where specific imaging tests are mentioned.

 2002
20021124

Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Primary Site/EOD-Extension--Lung: Should lung cases be counted as more than one primary when nodules removed from separate lobes of the same lung have either the same histology or they are different immunophenotypes of the same main histologic classification (e.g., adenocarcinoma)? See discussion.

1. Path report: "Two nodules (RLL, RUL) of primary pulmonary demonstrate adenocarcinoma with different histologic appearances and different immunophenotypes consistent with synchronous lung adenocarcinomas." Per ICC interpretation, two lung primaries are favored.

2. Path report: "Two peripheral nodules (LLL, LUL) demonstrate similar P.D. non-small cell carcinoma with features of large cell undifferentiated carcinoma."

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

According to current SEER rules, both examples represent one primary because both tumors are in one lung and of a single histologic type. Code the Primary Site field to C34.9 [Lung, NOS] for both examples and the EOD-Extension field to 77 [Separate tumor nodules in different lobe]. This will capture the fact that there are multiple tumors within the lung for each of these examples.

Differences in immunophenotypes confirm independent de novo cancers and rule out metastasis. Immunophenotype differences do not equate to different histologies. In the first example described, there are different histologic features; however, the main classification is adenocarcinoma.

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
20021176 Histology (Pre-2007)/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent histology for a case with a biopsy specimen that reveals "infiltrating ductal carcinoma with ductal carcinoma in situ, comedo subtype, non-extensive" in one quadrant of the breast and a mastectomy specimen with "invasive pleomorphic lobular carcinoma with lobular carcinoma in situ" in another quadrant of the breast? Paget disease is identified in the nipple section.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8522/3 [infiltrating duct and lobular carcinoma]. We are choosing the ductal and lobular combination over the Paget disease and lobular combination because it is more important for analysis purposes.

Be careful in using combination codes to code separate tumors in different locations of the same breast as a single primary. Currently there are only three combination codes for the breast that allow for this situation, 8522 [duct and lobular], 8541 [Paget disease and infiltrating duct] and 8543 [Paget disease and intraductal]. Other histologic type differences that occur as separate tumors in different parts of the same breast are coded as multiple 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.

 2002
20021021 Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Should we add the missing terms listed in the Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases to ICD-O-3 because these absent synonyms would not be identified during hematology casefinding? See discussion. The Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases gives a preferred term for each code followed by a list of synonyms, not all of which are listed in the ICD-O-3. Two examples are: 1) 9962/3 [Essential Thrombocythemia] has 6 synonymous terms listed, but the last three of them are not in ICD-O-3. 2) 9930/3 [Myeloid Sarcoma] has the synonym "extramedullary myeloid tumor" which is not in ICD-O-3.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Do not add these synonyms to ICD-O-3. The Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases lists synonyms for the preferred terms to assist in the classification of these other terms. In the absence of a specific code for the synonym, code to the preferred term. For casefinding, these terms would be grouped in a broader category of hematologic diseases under an ICD-9-CM or ICD-10 code and, therefore, will be identified during casefinding procedures using the disease index.

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.

 2002
20021141 EOD-Extension--Lung: When only minimal information is available, such as scans and needle biopsies, should EOD extension be coded to localized or unknown? See discussion.

The patient was diagnosed with non-small carcinoma of the lung by needle biopsy of the right upper lobe Feb. 2, 2001. History revealed that CT performed prior to needle bx showed 2 right sided lung lesions and right hilar adenopathy. Chest x-ray following needle bx showed irregular opacity within the RML appears unchanged. Soft tissue prominence in the azygos region, possibly related LN enlargement. This is the only information available.

Should we code extension as 30 [localized, NOS]?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 99 [unknown] if no additional information is available for this case. Because the second lesion in the right lung could be malignant, the extension code might be 77 [separate tumor nodule(s) in different lobe]. With the possibility of a more extensive stage, the status of the hilar lymph nodes is also not clear. The abstracted information is insufficient to stage this case.

 2002