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 11:47 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021112 Multiple Primaries/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: The subsequent primary table for 2001 and later indicates that 9863/3 [acute myelogenous leukemia (AML)] followed by 9980/3 [refractory anemia (RAEB)] is a new primary, but 9989/3 [myelodysplastic syndrome, NOS (MDS)] is not. Is the case below two primaries? See discussion. Bone marrow bx states: The morphologic blast count of 7% exceeds 5%, traditionally used to define relapse in the setting of acute leukemia. Given the clinical hx that the pt's peripheral blood counts had initially normalized after induction therapy, the recent fall in counts is worrisome for the possibility of early relapse. Alternatively, therapy may have simply reverted the pt's marrow from AML to a precursor myelodysplastic syndrome (such as RAEB given the blast count) from which the AML arose, with the falling counts being progression of the underlying MDS. The identification of significant dysplasia in the bone marrow at the time of diagnosis would tend to support the possibility of an underlying MDS. Clinically, it is unlikely to make a difference whether one regards the present situation as early relapse or progression of an underlying MDS. The final clinical diagnosis is "Myelodysplasia, classified as RAEB."

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

This case demonstrates a relapse of AML. The original classification of Histology as 9863/3 [AML] is correct. There is no second primary based on the information provided for this case.

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
20021017 Measured Thickness--Melanoma: Can in situ melanoma cases have "depth of invasion" coded to something other than 999? See discussion. Biopsy of the left arm: Melanoma, 0.2mm in thickness. The in situ component extends to a peripheral margin.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the Measured Thickness (depth) field to 020 [0.2 mm] for this case.

In situ disease can have a depth of invasion because the surface epithelium can be of varying depths without the melanoma breaking through the basement membrane.

 2002
20021172 EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: How much information is needed for a head and neck primary in order to code extension to localized versus unknown? What code is used to represent this field when the only information for a buccal cavity primary is a positive aspiration of the buccal mass?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension to 99 [Unknown] for this case until more information is received. The available information does not describe the primary site and there is a complete lack of staging information.

Head and neck cancers spread early and often to nodes. Do not code the EOD-Extension to localized when the information is as limited as it is for this example.

 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
20020039 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/EOD-Extension--Bladder/Prostatic Urethra: When noninvasive papillary transitional carcinoma of the bladder and invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the prostatic urethra are diagnosed at the same time, and staged by the pathologist as two primaries, should they reported as two primaries? If reportable as a single primary what site code should be used?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

No. This is one primary. Mucosal spread of noninvasive cancer from a hollow organ (bladder) into another hollow organ (prostatic urethra) is coded as a single primary. The prostatic urethra is seldom a primary site. The cancer usually starts in the bladder and spreads to the prostatic urethra via the mucosa. In this case the cancer in the prostatic urethra became invasive. Code primary site as bladder, NOS [C67.9].

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD Extension using the invasive information (prostatic urethra).

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
20021048 EOD-Lymph Nodes: If chemotherapy or radiation is given prior to the excision of an involved lymph node, should the size of the metastasis within the lymph node be coded from the subsequent surgical pathology report? See discussion. For several sites, the size of the metastasis in an involved lymph node is integrated into the EOD-Lymph Node field. Should the size of the metastasis mentioned on the pathology report be ignored if the patient received radiation or chemotherapy prior to having the lymph node removed?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Record the size of a lymph node metastasis described in the pathology report for cases that had pre-surgical treatment. However, if both the pre-treatment and post-treatment size of the lymph node metastases are available, use the larger size when coding the EOD-Lymph Node field.

 2002
20021157 Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation--Lung: What code is used to represent the histology for a lung biopsy of "non-small cell carcinoma with features of poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma"? See discussion. Non-small cell carcinoma does not appear to be an NOS term in ICD-O-3. The term "with features of" indicates a majority of tumor. Which rule should be used to code histology?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology and the Grade, Differentiation fields to 8140/33 [adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated].

The term "non-small cell carcinoma" is used to represent a broad category of epithelial cancers. Non-small cell carcinoma [8046/3] is grouped in the ICD-O-3 under "Epithelial Neoplasms, NOS." The term can be used by a pathologist when he rules out the fact that the patient has a small cell cancer by stating that the malignancy is a non-small cell type of cancer. In this case, the type of non-small cell cancer present in the specimen 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
20021183 Primary Site--Head & Neck: What site code is used to represent the following head and neck primary where there is not a clear statement of primary site? See discussion.

6/29/02: PE: 2-3 cm mass in the posterior pharynx that seems to arise from the right side of back of tongue.

6/29/02 CT soft tissue of neck: 3 cm right sided oropharyngeal mass, possibly arising from right tongue mass. There is near occlusion of airway at this level.

7/3/02 Excision of oropharyngeal tumor: Palpated mass could clearly be felt coming off the right lateral tongue in approximately the mid portion of the tongue near the tonsillar base.

 Code the Primary Site field to C02.9 [tongue, NOS], based on the information provided. 2002
20021010

Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology adenocarcinoma with "areas of" papillary architecture and "foci of" squamous differentiation? Even though "areas of" and "foci" are non-majority terms, should histology be coded to the combination code of adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes [8255/3]?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to the majority of the tumor, which is 8140/3 [adenocarcinoma, NOS]. The terms "areas of" and "foci of" should be ignored because they are not terms that reflect the majority of the tumor. Therefore, we cannot use rule A on page 2 of Coding Complex Morphologic Diagnoses because this diagnosis does not represent a complex morphology.

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
20020050

EOD Clinical Extension--Prostate: Can you assign code 15 if there is no TURP and no physical exam? See discussion.

[Code 15 = Tumor identified by needle biopsy, e.g. for elevated PSA, (T1c)]

 Prostate case: Elevated PSA, Prostate u/s: no abnormal findings, Prostate biopsy: adenocarcinoma. Can this be clinically coded as 15? According to Prostate EOD Coding Guide (6/2001), code 15 requires documentation that the physical exam was negative, but in this case, we have no physical info.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD Clinical Extension field to 30-34 when there is no documentation saying that the physical examination was negative.

 2002