SEER Inquiry System - Search

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

No. Never code the aggregate size in the Size of Primary Tumor field when the pieces removed come from TWO OR MORE tumors. If there is a clinical statement regarding the size of two or more tumors, code this field to the size of the largest tumor.

The aggregate size can only be used to code the Size of Primary Tumor field when the PATHOLOGIST estimates the size of the tumor from the pieces of ONE tumor removed by the surgeon.

For cases diagnosed 1/1/03 and later:

1. Code Surgery of Primary Site to 30 and Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery to 3.

2. Code Surgery of Primary Site to 41.

3. Code Surgery of Primary Site to 40 and Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery to 3.

4. Code Surgery of Primary Site to 40.

5. Code Surgical Procedure of Other Site to 4.

For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field to 3 [Number of regional lymph nodes removed unknown or not stated; regional lymph nodes removed, NOS] and code the EOD-Number of Regional Nodes Examined field to 00 [No nodes examined].

The surgery fields reflect the procedures the physician performed. The EOD fields reflect the results of those procedures.

Assign 9085/3. Code this combination of teratoma, yolk sac tumor, and embryonal tumor in the testis to mixed germ cell tumor (9085/3) based on the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Male Genital Organs.                            

The terms "bordering on" and "may represent" are not diagnostic of cancer. These terms are not on the list of ambiguous terms that constitute a diagnosis of cancer. The diagnosis in the example above is not reportable to SEER.

We recognize that the way clinicians and registrars speak is often different, and that the differences vary from region to region.

Our Medical Advisory Board reviewed the lists of ambiguous terminology before they were included in the third edition of the SEER EOD and the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2004. Since that time, specific terminology has been mandated for describing mammography results. We know some of these terms are discrepant with our ambiguous terminology list.

As of 2007, the standard setters (CoC, NPCR, SEER and CCCR) all use the same ambiguous terminology list. Changes to the list must be approved by the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee.

Report this case as 8077/2. Our expert pathologist consultant reviewed this and confirmed it is reportable. Here is some of his rationale.

The pathologist's designation as "moderate to severe" indicates there are areas of 2/3 of full thickness epithelial change, so the criteria to report are met.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Yes, this type of situation represents one primary. A tumor that is breaking down can be invasive in the center with in situ cancer at the margins. Occasionally the in situ margin can move into a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium.

Physicians may describe mucosal spread in various manners. You will see the terms "intramucosal extension," "in situ component extending to," or statements of an invasive component in one organ, with adjacent/associated in situ carcinoma in a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium. A frequent example of this process is bladder cancer extending into the prostatic urethra via mucosal spread.

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.

According to our expert pathologist adviser, renal angiomyoadenomatous tumor ("RAT") is not reportable. He states "l would be reluctant to consider the entity malignant. The authors of the papers describing it do not seem ready to call it malignant either. I agree with calling it LMP, or in this case uncertain malignant potential."