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: 02/26/2026 07:42 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer 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. 2002
20021093 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Colon: When an adenocarcinoma is stated to be arising in an adenoma and the "tumor size" stated in the final pathologic diagnosis is the same size as the mass described in the gross description, should we assume that the entire polyp has been totally/near totally replaced by tumor and code the tumor size stated in the final path diagnosis?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field as stated by the pathologist in the final pathologic diagnosis. If the size of the tumor is the same as the size of the polyp, assume the polyp was completely replaced by tumor.

 2002
20021175 Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology if the final diagnosis between an electron microscopy report and the immunocytochemistry (ICC) differs and both histologies are specific (e.g., one report states papillary carcinoma and the other states squamous cell carcinoma)?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

There is no established hierarchy between electron microscopy and ICC findings. Contact the pathologists involved in these types of cases to determine the final histologic diagnosis.

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
20021159 Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology "mucinous carcinoma with Paget disease"?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8480/3 [mucinous carcinoma]. This answer assumes the patient presented with a single tumor. There is no combination code that includes these two entities. According to the rules for Coding Complex Morphologic Diagnoses, it would appear that the case should be coded to 8540 [Paget disease] because it is the higher code. However, this combination of histologies represents an exception to that rule. The prognosis for mucinous carcinoma is worse than the prognosis for Paget disease. As a result, it would be more appropriate to the histology to mucinous carcinoma.

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
20021040 Other Therapy: What code is used to represent treatment with "Epithilone" or "Epothilone"? Code the Other Cancer-Directed Therapy field to 2 [Other experimental cancer-directed therapy (not included elsewhere)], until the exact mechanism of action is determined for this drug. This drug is in phase I clinical trials. It has a similar action to Taxol, but is derived from a different source. 2002
20021056

Histology (Pre-2007)/Terminology: Are "pattern", "architecture", and "architectural pattern" terms that indicate a majority of tumor?

For tumors diagnosed 2004 to 2006:

The terminology "Architectural pattern: ____________," when used in the final pathology diagnosis, indicates a subtype that can be coded. This type of format in a pathology report is based on a College of American Pathologists (CAP) protocol. Disregard "pattern" and "architecture" when not used in accordance with the CAP protocol. See www.cap.org for cancer protocols.

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
20021129 Histology/Date of Diagnosis--Hematopoietic, NOS: What code is used to represent histology for a June 2001 diagnosis of "myelodysplastic syndrome" followed by a September 2001 bone marrow biopsy diagnosis of "myelodysplasia evolving into an acute leukemic state"?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

Code the Histology field to 9989/3 [myelodysplastic syndrome] and the Date of Diagnosis field to June 2001.

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
20021081

Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Melanoma: Many melanoma patients have multiple occurrences over time that are not called recurrent and often are even in the same skin subsite, some in situ only and others alternating between in situ and invasive. Should these multiple occurrences really be new primaries?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Unless it is stated to be a RECURRENT or METASTATIC melanoma, record each melanoma as a separate primary when:

1. The occurrences are more than two months apart.

2. The fourth digit of the ICD-O topography code for skin [C44._] is different .

3. The first three digits of ICD-O-3 morphology code are different.

4. An in situ melanoma is followed by an invasive melanoma.

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
20021187

Reportability: When a hospital pathologist sends the slides from an original biopsy to two or more outside reviewers and the reviewers differ on whether or not the case is reportable, is the case SEER reportable? Does the decision to treat the patient have any bearing on whether the case would be reportable?

Typically, the final diagnosis of the reviewing pathologist is the one used to determine whether the case is SEER reportable. If two or more reviewing pathologists disagree as to whether the case should be reportable, determine reportability based on the following priority order:

1) If the patient is treated for cancer, the case is reportable.

2) If the patient is not treated for cancer, use the amended diagnosis on the original pathology report if the hospital pathologist used the reviewing pathologists' opinions in establishing his new diagnosis.

3) If there is not an amended diagnosis for the original hospital pathology report, use the clinician's opinion regarding what the diagnosis is to determine whether the case is reportable.

 2002