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: 08/27/2025 11:46 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021090 Primary Site--Ovary/Peritoneum: How should the Primary Site field be coded when no resection is done and it is uncertain whether the primary site is in the ovary or the peritoneum? See discussion. CT: ascites, omental cake and peritoneal studding. H&P impression: probable ovarian or peritoneal primary. Repeat CT: no enlarged adnexal mass seen to suggest ca of ovary, but possibility couldn't be ruled out. Omental bx: Metastatic ca. Comment: "IHC stains have been performed and are not typical of ovarian ca, although do not exclude an ovarian primary." After the bx, there were two clinical diagnoses written a month apart with no evidence of further work-up between those dates. The first diagnosis was "ovarian ca". The second was "Peritoneal carcinomatosis 2 month ago; Primary is unknown, possibly ovarian."

Use the best information available to identify the primary site. In this case, it is the physician's clinical assessment. Code the Primary Site to C56.9 [Ovary] for this example because the ovary is indicated to be the primary site according to the physicians involved.

When there is no surgical procedure involving the removal of the ovaries, code the Primary Site based on the clinical assessment of the disease location. If the disease is only noted to be in the peritoneum, code site to peritoneum, NOS. If the disease is seen clinically in both the ovary and the peritoneum, code site to ovary.

 2002
20021005 EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent this field for an extranodal lymphoma that has more than one tumor in the primary site OR has intraluminal extension from the primary site to an adjacent organ? See discussion.

1. Small lymphocytic lymphoma with 2 tumors in the stomach.

2. Lymphoma involving the cecum and ileum.

3. Lymphoma of the fundus of stomach with extension into the esophagus.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Using the EOD scheme for lymphoma, code the Extension field to 11 [Localized involvement of a single extralymphatic organ or site; Stage IE] for all 3 of these cases.

For the stomach lymphoma: There are 2 areas of lymphoma, but it is still confined to one site.

For the other 2 lymphomas: Intraluminal (mucosal) spread of the lymphoma never equals extension. The same phrase that was added to code 21, "Direct extension to adjacent organs or tissues", will be added to code 11 in the Collaborative Stage System. Neither "mucosal spread to a contiguous organ" or "direct extension into a nearby organ" affect staging. Both are still coded to 11 as long as there are no other sites of lymphoma involvement.

EOD code 80 is poorly written. It does not mean diffuse invovement or multiple tumors in a single organ but rather "diffuse disease in two or more organs."

 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
20021118 Grade, Differentiation--Lymphoma/Leukemia: Should the term "Pre-T" be added to code 5 [T-cell] in the ICD-O-3 Table 22, 6th Digit Code for Immunophenotype Designation for Lymphoma and Leukemia?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 5 [T-cell] in the 6th digit of the ICD-O-3 morphology field when the terms "pre-T cell" or "T-precursor" are used. However, this is not an official change to ICD-O-3.

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
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
20021096 Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: What codes are used to represent this field for the four bladder cases described in the discussion section that have a combination of grades mentioned in the pathology reports? See discussion.

1) Final path diagnosis: papillary transitional cell carcinoma, high grade. Micro description states: High grade, poorly differentiated carcinoma.

2) Well to moderately differentiated papillary transitional cell carcinoma, grade 1-2/3.

3) Urothelial carcinoma, high grade (poorly differentiated, grade 3 of 3).

4) High grade papillary urothelial carcinoma (papillary transitional cell carcinoma, grade 3 out of 4).

For cases diagnosed January 2004 and forward:

1) Grade 4. High grade is coded 4. Code the grade stated in the final diagnosis.

2) Grade 3. Grade 1-2/3 is coded 3. Use the three-grade conversion table in the 2004 SEER manual.

3) Grade 4. Grade 3 of 3 is coded 4. Use the three-grade conversion table in the 2004 SEER manual.

4) Grade 3. "Grade 3 out of 4" is coded 3 and is more precise than "high grade."

 2002
20020014 Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: Can the WHO grade be used to code differentiation for bladder primaries? No, the WHO grade is not used to code differentiation for bladder primaries. 2002
20020044

Terminology/EOD-Extension--Prostate: How does SEER define the prostatic "apex"? See discussion.

Some pathologists define the prostatic apex as including the bottom third of the prostate whereas others regard only the bottom-most portion of the gland to be the apex.

SEER defines the apex as being the bottom-most portion of the gland. Apex means "narrowest part," which in the prostate would be the bottom-most portion of the gland.

 2002
20021047 Surgery of Primary Site--Bladder: Do we code "random bladder biopsies" as an excisional biopsy (27) or as no cancer directed surgery (00) even if the only involvement mentioned on the pathology reports is "focal carcinoma in situ"? Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 00 [None; no surgery of primary site] when only random biopsy procedures are performed on the bladder. 2002
20021050 EOD-Extension--Pancreas: If the tumor involvement for a case falls between two different regional extension codes, should we code to the lesser of the two codes or should we code extension as unknown? See discussion.

Example 1: CT scan description: Mass in the head of the pancreas. The duodenum is "surrounded" by tumor. Should we code extension to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS] or 99 [unknown] because the extension code could be further than 40. It could be 44 [extension to duodenum].

Example 2: CT scan description: Mass in region of pancreatic head and "root" of superior mesenteric artery consistent with pancreatic cancer. Should we code extension to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS] or 99 [unknown] because the extension code could be further than 40? It could be 54 [extension to major blood vessels].

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

In both examples, code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS]. Choose the lowest of a known possible extension code over an unknown code.

 2002