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: 02/16/2026 22:50 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20010128 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Bladder/Prostatic Urethra: When invasive TCC of the bladder and TCC in-situ of the prostatic urethra are diagnosed at the same time, are they reportable as two primaries? See discussion. There is no direct extension of tumor from the bladder to the urethra. According to the SEER rules for determining separate primaries, bladder (C67) and urethra (C68) are separate sites. However, it seems that TCC in the bladder and urethra should be reported as a single primary.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

This is one primary. Mucosal spread of in situ cancer from a hollow organ (bladder) into another hollow organ (prostatic urethra) is coded as a single primary.

This type of mucosal spread of tumor is sometimes referred to as "intramucosal extension" or " in situ component extending to." Mucosal spread can also be expressed as a statement of an invasive component in one organ with adjacent or associated in situ carcinoma in a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium.

This case represents an invasive bladder tumor with in situ extension to the prostatic urethra. A tumor that is breaking down can be invasive in the center with in situ cancer at its margins. Occasionally, the in situ margin can move into a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium.

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.

 2001
20010166

Reportability--Myelodysplastic Syndrome: How we handle cases of myelodysplastic syndromes identified in 2001 casefinding documents that are determined to have an "unknown diagnosis" date after review of the patient's hospital medical record?

Myelodysplastic syndrome cases with unknown dates of diagnosis identified in pre-2001 casefinding documents should not be accessioned and are not SEER reportable.

For cases identified in 2001 casefinding documents, when the diagnosis date cannot be confirmed using the medical records typically accessed by the registrar or central registry staff, do not accession these cases; they are not SEER reportable. This default applies only to those cases identified in 2001 casefinding documents.

For cases identified in 2002 or later casefinding documents, the attending physician should be contacted and asked to clarify the diagnosis date for cases identified with unknown dates of diagnosis. Clarifying the diagnosis date is necessary to determine whether the case is reportable and whether it should be accessioned.

 2001
20010155

Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Melanoma: Would a shave biopsy diagnosis of "highly suggestive of early melanoma", followed by a re-excision diagnosis of "no residual disease", be SEER reportable if the clinician referred to the case clinically as a melanoma? If so, what would the Diagnostic Confirmation be? See discussion.

Pathology report from a shave biopsy states: "...markedly atypical junctional melanocytic proliferation. Changes highly suggestive of early melanoma arising adjacent to superficial congenital nevus." The re-excision pathology report states "biopsy proven melanoma" in the "Clinical History" section of the report (which is a reference to the original shave biopsy). The re-excision final pathology diagnosis states "no evidence of melanoma." The physician states that he thinks this is a melanoma. Should it be reported? Should Diagnostic Confirmation be coded to 1 or 8?

The case is reportable because the physician documented a clinical diagnosis of malignant melanoma. Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field to 8 [Clinical diagnosis only (other than 5, 6 or 7)].

 2001
20010158 EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: Does capsular invasion (code 32) take priority over apex extension (code 34) on prostate primaries? See discussion. On prostatectomy, adenocarcinoma involves left apex and also left mid lobe where it focally invades capsule. Do we code extension to 34 - the highest numerical code, or to 32 to capture the capsular invasion? Do codes 33 and 34 represent a subset of code 31, and would code 32 represent greater tumor involvement?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Pathologic Extension field to 32 [Invasion into (but not beyond)prostatic capsule] when there is both capsular and apex invasion of the prostate.

Although numerically lower, code 32 takes precedence over codes 33 [arising in the apex] and 34 [extending to the apex]. Codes 33 and 34 are "subsets" of code 31 [Into prostatic apex/arising in prostatic apex].

 2001
20010143 EOD-Lymph Nodes/EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined--Lung: How do you code these fields for clinically positive lymph nodes when the result of neoadjuvant treatment is that the lymph nodes are pathologically negative? See discussion.

The pt presents with "mediastinal adenopathy" for a lung primary and was treated with pre-operative radiation therapy. After two months, he was treated with surgery. The 10 lymph nodes removed were all negative. How does SEER code these three EOD fields?

Will an error be triggered in SEER Edits if you code lymph nodes as clinically positive in the EOD lymph node involvement field and yet pathologically negative in the number of regional nodes positive and number of regional nodes examined fields?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 2 [Mediastinal, NOS]. Code the EOD-Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined fields to 00/10. You will not have a problem with the SEER Edits. The EOD field is coded using clinical and pathologic information. All information gathered within four months of the date of diagnosis (in the absence of disease progression) or through completion of surgery(ies) can be used to code EOD. The clinically positive nodes justify the radiation therapy.

 2001
20010116 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Corpus Uteri: If both the width and depth of the tumor are provided, do we code the largest dimension in the tumor size field? If the width dimension is not provided, can we code the depth of the tumor in the tumor size field? See discussion. Example: An endometrial primary is described as having, "a soft lobulated tumor diffusely involving the entire endometrium, extending 2.0 cm into the myometrium."

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 999 [unknown] for this case because this field is supposed to reflect the dimension for tumor width and not tumor depth. Tumor depth is coded in the EOD-Extension field.

 2001
20010136 Reason no treatment/Surgery of Primary Site: Does the "Reason for No Cancer-Directed Therapy" field only relate to the "Surgery of Primary Site" field? If so, for what diagnosis years is that effective? Have SEER's coding guidelines changed over time? See discussion. Whenever a surgical procedure is performed that results in a non 0 or 9 code in any one of the Surgery fields, should the Reason for No Site-Specific Surgery field be coded to 0 [Cancer-directed surgery performed]? For cases diagnosed 2003 and forward: The field "Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site" applies only to surgery of primary site. This is a change from the pre-2003 instructions. 2001
20010094

Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Breast: Should the American College of Radiology (ACR) BI-RADS assessment categories 4 [Suspicious Abnormality--biopsy should be considered] and 5 [Highly Suggestive of malignancy-appropriate action should be taken], impressions for mammograms and sonograms, be used as the sole basis for reportability? See discussion.

ACR website:

Category 4: Lesions that do not have the characteristic morphologies of breast cancer but have a definite probability of being malignant.

Category 5: lesions have a high probability of being cancer.

Updated Answer

Please refer to Appendix E of the SEER Program Coding Manual for the most up-to-date information, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2018/SPCSM_2018_AppendixE.pdf

 2001
20010029 Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: Can "Fuhrman nuclear grade" be coded if it is the only grade given for a kidney primary, or is breast the only site for which we can use a nuclear grade in coding the Grade, Differentiation field? See discussion.

Our pathologist consultant disagrees with coding nuclear grade for any site because it is only a component of the grade, in most cases, and is not adequate to use by itself.

If the Fuhrman nuclear grade system can be used by coders, will a conversion table for the system be added to the coding documentation by SEER in the future?

 For cases diagnosed 2004 and later: Fuhrman grade can be used to code the Grade, Differentiation field. 2001
20010091 Surgical Procedure of Other Site: Is the excision of a distant lymph node or a fine needle aspirate (FNA) of a distant lymph node coded as a Surgical Procedure of Other Site, even though they are performed for diagnostic purposes and not intended as treatment?

For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Surgical Procedure of Other Site field to 3 [Non-primary surgical procedure to distant lymph nodes] for an excision of a distant lymph node because it is a surgical procedure. However, if only a fine needle aspirate of a distant lymph node is done, code this field to 0 [None].

Fine needle aspirates of regional lymph nodes are the only FNA biopsies to be coded in a surgery field (Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field). In addition, FNA biopsies of regional nodes are also included in the EOD-Number of Positive Regional and Examined Lymph Nodes fields.

 2001