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: 10/07/2026 16:00 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20031116

EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can the term "filling defect" be used to code tumor size? See Description.

Site: Bladder

CT abd/pelvis: 4 cm filling defect of the bladder encasing jetstream of distal ureter. 2-3 cm lesion may be extension to bladder. KUB: 3-4 cm filling defect within bladder.

Cystoscopy: large bladder tumor with small tumor extending out of the large tumor.

OP Findings: Large tumor on right of bladder extending from bladder neck lateral and posterior

Pathology: TURB: High grade TCC, Grade III with focal lamina propria invasion.

For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:

Information on size from imaging/radiographic techniques can be used to code size when there is no more specific size information from a pathology or operative report, but it should be taken as low priority, just above a physical exam.

The term "filling defect" from a CT or KUB may be used to code tumor size for bladder in the absence of more reliable size information from path, operative or endoscopic reports.

 N/A N/A 2003
20051064 Cancer-Directed Treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Anus: Is "infrared coagulation" coded as surgery or "other" treatment for anal canal primaries? Do not code infrared coagulation -- it is not treatment for cancer. N/A First course treatment, Surgery of Primary Site 2005
20230003

SEER Manual/Reportability--Ambiguous Terminology:  Please clarify the reportability and relevant date ranges of the following ambiguous terminology: almost certainly, most certainly, and malignant until proven otherwise.  See Discussion.

SINQ 20180104 indicates, in the absence of further info, the terms “almost certainly” and “until proven otherwise” are NOT reportable. There is no date range provided for this answer.

SINQ 20200027 indicates, in the absence of further info, the term “most certainly” IS reportable. There is no date range provided for this answer.

SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2022 indicates, in the absence of further info, the terms “until proven otherwise” and “most certainly” ARE reportable.

Essentially, we are hoping for an update of SINQ 20180104 due to 2022 reportability change. Clarification to the equivalence of “almost certainly” and “most certainly” would also be helpful.

Use the ambiguous terminology list as a guide in the absence of additional information after reviewing all available information and consulting the physician who diagnosed and/or staged the tumor. 

Equivalent to "Diagnostic for" malignancy or reportable diagnosis

  • most certainly carcinoma
  • malignant until proven otherwise

Not Equivalent to "Diagnostic for" malignancy or reportable diagnosis

  • almost certainly ("almost" conveys uncertainty in comparison to "most" as in "most certainly")

We will update SINQ 20180104.

 N/A N/A 2023
20061022

Reportability: Are glomus jugulare tumors reportable?

Begining with cases diagnosed 2021, glomus jugulare tumor, NOS is reportable. It is listed in ICD-O-3.2 with a behavior code of /3.

 N/A N/A 2006
20031131

Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Would osteosarcoma of the right arm diagnosed four years after malignant fibrous histiocytoma, also in the right arm, be a second primary when the physician states, "the patient's disease progressed to sarcoma after radiation was administered?"

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

The osteosarcoma is a second primary. The first three digits of the histology codes are different: 8830 [Malignant fibrous histiocytoma] and 918_ or 919_ [Osteosarcoma]. In addition, the diagnoses are four years apart. According to SEER rules, these are separate 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.

 N/A N/A 2003
20091093

Race--How and when is Appendix D, Race and Nationality Descriptions from the 2000 Census and Bureau of Vital Statistics, to be used? See Discussion.

For example, if race is recorded as unknown on the facesheet of a hardcopy medical record or in the race field of an electronic medical record, how should race be coded for the following descriptions found in the history and physical or consultation reports submitted by clinicians?

1) Patient is Czechoslovakian

2) Patient is born in Czechoslovakia

3) Patient is Ethiopian

4) Patient is born in Ethiopia

5) Patient is Japanese

6) Patient is born in Japan

7) Patient is Brazilian

8) Patient is born in Brazil

Would you code these cases any differently if these descriptions were actually used in the race fields in the medical record or on a death certificate?

Code the patient's stated race when possible. Refer to Appendix D, Race and Nationality Descriptions from the 2000 Census and Bureau of Vital Statistics, for guidance.

Use the lists in Appendix D when race is not stated but other information is provided in the medical record. The cases you provide are good examples of the use of Appendix D. They would be coded the same if the descriptions were used in the medical record or death certificate race fields.

 N/A Race, ethnicity 2009
20130184

Reportability--Appendix: Are low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms reportable?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2022

A low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) is not reportable. The WHO classification designates LAMN with the behavior code /1 [uncertain whether benign or malignant].

 N/A N/A 2013
20160033

First course teatment/Surgery of Primary Site: Is microwave ablation (using heat not alcohol) coded to a surgery code? See Discussion.

As of 2013, radiofrequency ablation is coded to "radiation therapy," chemoembolization is coded to "chemotherapy," and microwave ablation code to "other."  Or, is coding microwave ablation (using heat not alcohol) coded to surgical code "16"? The latest documentation year that I could find in the SEER website regarding the above was 2013. I would appreciate clarification/confirmation of correct coding especially for microwave ablation.

According to a consensus answer of the technical advisory group, a small group of representatives from each standard setter that meets periodically, microwave tumor ablation should be coded as surgery.  For liver, assign code 16 (Heat-Radio-Frequency ablation (RFA); for kidney, assign code 15 (Thermal ablation).

N/A First course treatment, Surgery of Primary Site 2016
20130187 Reportability: Is a clinically diagnosed Stage III malignant thymoma reportable when the post-neoadjuvant resection showed spindle cell thymoma? See Discussion. A thymoma is described by the medical oncologist at the time of the initial diagnosis as a malignant thymoma, Stage III. The patient had neoadjuvant CAP chemotherapy followed by a resection. Following the resection, the pathologist stated the diagnosis was spindle cell thymoma. A malignant thymoma is reportable. Based on the information provided, a reportable diagnosis (malignant thymoma) was made by a physician and the patient was treated for this diagnosis. Because there is no mention of the initial diagnosis being amended based on the resection specimen's pathology report, assume the initial diagnosis is still valid. N/A N/A 2013
20110071 Primary site: How is this field coded for an adenocarcinoma arising in a chronic perianal fistula without extension to the anal canal, but stated to arise in "ectopic rectal tissue"? See Discussion.

The patient underwent a resection of a perineal mass. Per review of slides it was stated to be "primary mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in a chronic perianal fistula." The adenocarcinoma was invasive into the dermal connective tissue and skeletal muscle, but there was no extension into the anal canal. The discharge diagnosis from the reporting facility called this adenocarcinoma of "ectopic rectal tissue in perianal area."

Should the primary site be coded to skin based on the dermal involvement and lack of anal or rectal involvement? Or, should the primary site be coded to rectum based on the physician's assessment that this adenocarcinoma arose in ectopic rectal tissue?

For cases diagnosed 2007-2014:

Code the Primary Site field to C210 [Anus, NOS]. This is an unusual and rare presentation. According to our expert pathologist, "There is no ideal site code [for] this case. I would code to C210. In this location it can at least be located by anyone who wants to get a look at such lesions. Because of the unusual location of this tumor, I would like to be able to code it to perineum, but it will be totally lost in those site codes as they represent extensive areas beyond perianal (skin of trunk, soft tissue of pelvis, and pelvis, respectively)... I would not code to rectum [because it would be] lost among too many primary rectal carcinomas."

 N/A Primary site 2011