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: 07/11/2025 22:30 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021144 EOD-Extension--Colon: What code is used to represent this field for a mid-ascending colon primary that invades through muscularis propria and into subserosal fibroadipose tissue that also presents with a "separate serosal nodule" of carcinoma within cecum that is consistent with a tumor implant (cT3, N0, M1)?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [Metastasis], because the nodule of carcinoma in the cecum is not contiguous with the mid-ascending primary colon tumor.

 2002
20021165 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--All Sites: Is there a hierarchy for using information from clinical tests (scans, radiography) to determine clinical tumor size? When the size on a radiographic report prior to pathologic diagnosis is smaller than the size of the tumor on the radiographic report that is post pathologic diagnosis, which tumor size should be used? See discussion.

Which size should be used for these examples?

1) Tumor size on a mammogram is smaller than the tumor size on an ultrasound.

2) CT of the lung reveals a 2.5 cm RUL malignancy in June. A biopsy in July confirms a malignancy. A CT is done in August prior to initiating RT which reveals a 3.1 cm RUL nodule.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Generally, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to the largest size identified in any scan. Use the largest tumor size for most cases. There is no hierarchy for multiple imaging studies, with the exception of the two situations represented in the question examples.

1). Code the size stated on the mammogram, even if that size is smaller than the one specified on the ultrasound. Generally the mammogram size is more accurate for breast cases than ultrasound.

2). Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 2.5 cm. In this example, the second scan was the same type as the first. Usually there is not that much of a difference in size between the same tests, unless the tumor has an aggressive histology. The example does not mention the histology. With certain histologies, such as small cell of the lung, a rapid growth in a short amount of time is the normal process. The fact that the size increased that much in a short period of time, using the same type of scan, is an indication of a rapidly growing tumor. It would be better to use the size on the initial scan to code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor.

 2002
20020069 Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is "evolving" multiple myeloma reportable to SEER?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:No, it is not SEER reportable. The diagnosis of "evolving" multiple myeloma could represent a plasmacytoma, plasma cell dyscrasia or another lymphoproliferative disorder. Some of these histologies are SEER reportable, but some are not. Additional information would be needed to determine reportability. If you are unable to obtain more information, the case is non-reportable.

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
20021029 Grade, Differentiation--Breast: Should the Bloom-Richardson (BR) grade (low, intermediate, high) have a higher priority than terminology (i.e., well differentiated)? See discussion.

1. Grade of infiltrating carcinoma 1) Nuclear grade low; 2) Histological grade-intermediate; 3) Mitotic rate-low, 4) BR score 4.

2. Poorly differentiated but grade II/III. Microscopic comment: Slides show infiltrating ca which is P.D. in that it forms no tubules, but is grade 2 out of 3 in the modified BR scheme. It is ductal type with large moderately pleomorphic tumor cells displaying few mitoses.

3. Invasive moderately differentiated duct cell carcinoma with the following features: Modified BR grade: III/III (2+3+3=8).

For cases diagnosed prior to 2004:

Code the example cases as follows:

1. Grade 2. Histologic grade terminology ("intermediate") has the highest priority.

2. Grade 3. Terminology ("poorly differentiated") has the highest priority.

3. Grade 2. Histologic grade terminology "moderately differentiated" has priority.

2002
20021180

Surgery of Primary Site/Other Cancer-Directed Therapy--Head & Neck (Nasal cavity): Should a small fragment of bone removed during a maxillectomy following a turbinectomy for a nasal turbinate primary be "partial or total removal with other organ" for coding this field? See discussion.

Excision of a turbinate mass and partial turbinectomy revealed melanoma of the rt nasal turbinate. A subsequent rt medial maxillectomy was performed and a small fragment of bone was included in the resection and identified in the pathology report. Would the removed bone be "connective or supportive tissue" only for a Surgery of Primary Site code of 40 or is it another organ for a code of 60?

The piece of bone was likely removed to access the maxillary sinus and would not be a separate organ. Use the "All Other Sites" surgery coding schemes to code this primary. For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 40 [Total surgical removal of primary site]. Code the Surgical Procedure of Other Site field to 2 [Non-primary surgical procedure to other regional sites]. The maxillectomy was not performed in continuity to the turbinectomy and should be coded in this field rather than the Surgery of Primary Site field.

 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
20021089 Primary Site--Ovary/Peritoneum: When ovaries are not found on a resection or if the ovaries removed are negative for malignancy, but the clinician refers to the adenocarcinoma in the pelvis as being an "ovarian" primary, should the primary site be coded as ovary, pelvic peritoneum or unknown? See discussion.

Example 1: Patient has a history of a BSO without an indication that it was done for malignancy. Pt has a resection. No ovarian tissue found. No site is mentioned in the pathology report. The clinician refers to the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in the pelvis as an "ovarian" primary.

Example 2: Resected ovaries are negative. No specific site of origin is mentioned in the path. Again, the clinician refers to the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in the pelvis as an "ovarian" primary.

 Code the Primary Site for both examples to peritoneum [C48.2]. When the physician refers to a case as "ovarian" even though the ovaries are negative or when the histology is an ovarian histology, such as papillary serous ca, the primary site should be coded to the peritoneum. Code the Primary Site to where it appears the disease is arising. 2002
20021130

EOD-Extension--Breast: If a negative bone scan is followed by a bone marrow biopsy that is positive for metastatic disease, is the bony involvement used when coding extension [85] or as progression of disease (ignore mets when coding extension)? See discussion.

Pt diagnosed with ductal carcinoma of the breast in May. On June 1, oncologist recommended chemo and XRT and planned a metastatic workup. A June 6 marrow MR consistent with mets. June 8 bone scan showed scoliosis of the L-spine with scattered focal areas of increased activity probably related to degenerative changes in the spine. On June 29, biopsies were done of the T2 vertebra with path diagnosis of metastatic adenocarcinoma consistent with breast primary. Chemo started July 15.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, is EOD extension code 85 correct? We felt that the bone mets was found within 4 months of diagnosis and is not progression of disease.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [metastasis]. Bone metastasis was documented during the original metastatic workup. Metastasis to the bone was suspected soon after diagnosis and confirmed prior to the start of treatment. The length of time between the diagnosis and the confirmation of the bone metastasis was not used to code extension on this case. The pt was still being worked up as evidenced by the fact that treatment had not yet started.

 2002
20020046 Primary Site: How do we code site when endometrioid carcinoma arises in "endometriosis"? Code the Primary Site to where the endometriosis implanted, which may or may not be the endometrium. Endometrioid carcinoma can arise in the ovary, endometrium and other internal genital sites. The site/histology edit for endometrioid and ovary has been removed from the SEER edit set. 2002
20021055 EOD-Extension--Liver: Can we use CT scan descriptions such as "portal vein thrombosis" or "extensive infiltration of the liver" or "diffuse infiltration of the liver" to code extension for liver primaries? See discussion.

1. Would you code portal vein involvement for a CT scan description of "portal vein thrombosis"?

2. Would you code more than one lobe of the liver as involved for CT scan descriptions of "extensive infiltration of the liver" or "diffuse infiltration of the liver"?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

1. No. Thrombosis can be caused by non-cancerous conditions.

2. Yes. Code the EOD-Extension field to 65 [Multiple (satellite) nodules in more than one lobe of the liver] when "extensive infiltration" or "diffuse infiltration" is stated.

 2002