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: 03/04/2026 11:24 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021173 Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent a review of slides histology of "in situ squamous cell carcinoma and multiple detached fragments of atypical papillary squamous epithelium; highly suspicious for invasive carcinoma"? See discussion. The original pathologist indicated a final diagnosis of moderately differentiated squamous cell carcinoma. The slides were sent for review to another facility. The reviewing pathologist rendered the diagnosis stated in the question section.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8070 [squamous cell carcinoma].

The review diagnosis was also squamous cell carcinoma. The expression "atypical papillary squamous epithelium" does not modify the cancer histology.

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
20020052 EOD-Extension--Lung: How do you code extension for a lung tumor described on bronchoscopy as "obstructing the RUL and intruding into the right bronchus intermedius. Small tumor nodules distally in midline of anterior trachea wall"?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [Metastasis] because the tumor nodules are discontinuous from the primary tumor.

 2002
20021070 CS Extension/CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: How would you interpret the phrase "axillary lymph node tissue, not clearly a lymph node" or the phrase "satellite nodule of invasive tumor, left axillary lymph node or chest wall tissue"? See discussion. A lumpectomy with axillary lymph node dissection and removal of nodule in anterior axillary line revealed negative lymph nodes. The nodule specimen was labeled "axillary lymph tissue, not clearly a lymph node". The microscopic description for that specimen stated "Fibroadipose tissue. A fragment of a lymph node is incidentally sampled in block 4 and it is free of tumor". The final path dx stated "Satellite nodule of invasive tumor, left axillary lymph node, or chest wall tissue. Comment: If the tissue is considered chest wall this would be a stage IIIB. If it is considered an intramammary satellite nodule, this is a stage I". The clinician repeated what the comment said, and added "If lymph node mets, this is a stage II." Code the invasive tumor in the axillary area as a regional lymph node metastasis. According to the AJCC, cancerous nodules in the axillary fat adjacent to the breast, without histologic evidence of residual lymph node tissue, are classified as regional lymph node metastases. 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
20021053 EOD-Extension--Pancreas: How would you code extension for the following non-surgically treated pancreas primaries? None of these cases has TNM staging to assist with classifying the extent of disease. See discussion.

1) CT scan: Cystic lesion in body of pancreas. Discharge dx: pancreas ca.

2) Discharge dx: CBD obstruction due to probable early ca in head of pancreas.

3) CT scan: mass involves the head and body of the pancreas. No evidence of abdominal mets. Discharge dx: Locally advanced pancreatic ca.

4) H&P: Pt with splenomegaly probably secondary to splenic vein thrombosis and a large ca of the tail of pancreas. Imp: Advanced pancreatic ca of the tail of pancreas. Would you code extension to splenic vein [56]?

5) H&P: Pancreatic ca with extension or mets into porta hepatis. (Would you assume direct extension or mets?)

6) CT scan: Pancreas ca. Significant peritoneal implants. (Would you assume the implants to be related to the pancreas primary and code as involvement?)

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

The information provided for these pancreatic primary examples is very limited. Additional information should be sought. If not available, code the EOD-Extension field to:

1) 10

2) 10

3) 10

4) 99

5) Assuming primary in head, body or tail of pancreas, 76

6) 85

 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
20021143 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: Should just one primary be reported when only ductal carcinoma in situ is diagnosed initially but the mastectomy performed as part of the first course of cancer-directed therapy, but more than 2 months after diagnosis, contains a diagnosis of invasive ductal carcinoma? See discussion. How do we code this case in light of the EOD guideline that states we include all information collected within 4 months of diagnosis or through the completion of first surgery in the absence of disease progression when coding.

For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:

Report this case as one invasive primary, unless stated to be two primaries by the clinician. This appears to be a single primary with different behaviors, rather than separate tumors.

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
20020059

Grade, Differentiation: Can a FIGO grade be coded in this field or is the FIGO grading system to be used only for EOD/Stage coding?

This answer pertains to cases prior to 2014. For cases diagnosed 2014 and forward, see http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/grade/

Do not use FIGO grade to code differentiation.

FIGO grade is something completely different from FIGO stage. FIGO stage is used to code EOD. FIGO grade is based on the percentage of non-squamous (i.e., solid) portions of the tumor and corresponds roughly to a three grade differentiation system: grade I, well differentiated (=<5% solid component); grade II, moderately differentiated (>5 - 50% solid); and grade III, poorly differentiated (> 50% solid). SEER is evaluating whether the ICD-O-3 6th digit differentiation codes (four grade categories) accurately represent the FIGO grade. For the time being, do not code FIGO grade.

For a diagnosis that includes commonly used differentiation term with a FIGO grade, such as "Moderately differentiated, FIGO grade II," disregard the FIGO grade and code the Grade, Differentiation field according to the term "Moderately differentiated."

2002
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
20020063 EOD-Extension--Breast: How do we interpret "dermal lymphovascular space invasion" and "dermal lymphovascular invasion" for extension? See discussion. A breast path report states tumor invades dermal lymphovascular spaces. Also, pathologists sometimes state "dermal lymphovascular invasion". Are both these terms synonymous with dermal lymphatic invasion?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Dermal lymphovascular invasion and tumor in dermal lymphatics would both be coded as dermal lymphatic invasion.

 2002