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 01:27 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20071066 Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: Can grade be coded from the pathology report for a recurrent bladder cancer specimen? See Discussion. In 2006 a TURB was done for bladder carcinoma diagnosed 10 years ago. Is grade always coded 9 on class 3 cases unless the original slides were reviewed?

Code grade from the original tumor; do not code grade from recurrence.

If the grade of the original primary tumor is specified, code it, regardless of class of case.

 Bladder N/A 2007
20071096 Multiplicity Counter--Prostate: How is multiplicity counter to be coded for a clinically inapparent prostate cancer for which sextant needle biopsy cores on left and right sides are positive for adenocarcinoma? See Discussion.

Prostate cancer typically presents as multifocal diffuse disease. The coding exercise in the MPH rules presentations coded prostate cancer as one tumor.

Reference: SEER Training Web Casts - Other Sites Rules Practicum

 Code the number of tumors present if known. This information can be taken from any part of the record, including imaging and prostatectomy. If the only information available is "diffuse," or "multifocal," assign code 99. Do not assume there are multiple tumors just beacause there are multiple biopsies. When there is no information about the number of tumors, code Multiplicity Counter to 99 and Type of Multiple Tumors to 99. Prostate N/A 2007
20021153 Grade, Differentiation--Breast: Is "histological grade" another way of saying "tubule formation" which would result in the following case having a Bloom-Richardson (BR) score of 7 which would be coded to grade 2? See discussion. Final path diagnosis stated: Invasive ductal ca, histological grade 3/3, nuclear grade 2/3, mitotic index-moderate. Yes. Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 2 [Grade 2] for this case. This case has a BR score of 7 which converts to a grade of 2. This pathologist seems to be describing the three parts of the BR system: tubule formation, mitotic activity and nuclear grade. Breast N/A 2002
20041029

Ambiguous Terminology/Reportability: Are the terms "bordering on" and "may represent" diagnostic of cancer? See Discussion.

Pathology report states "...florid micropapillary hyperplasia, focally atypical with features bordering on low grade micropapillary ductal carcinoma in situ."

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.

 N/A N/A 2004
20000465 Grade, Differentiation--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent this field when the only grade/differentiation given is "low grade", "intermediate grade" or "high grade"?

Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable]. For lymphomas, do not code the descriptions "high grade," "low grade," and "intermediate grade" in the Grade, Differentiation field. These terms refer to categories in the Working Formulation and not to histologic grade for lymphoma histologies.

Generally, for histologies other than Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the Grade, Differentiation field is coded to 2 [low grade], 3 [intermediate grade] and 4 [high grade] for most cancers.

 Lymphoma N/A 2000
20010002 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: How do you code tumor size for lesions described as "at least 2 cm"? See discussion. The expression "at least 2 cm" seems to be different from "greater than 2 cm." Stating "at least" seems to indicate that if the tumor is larger than 2 cm, it is difficult to ascertain the exact tumor size. Should we accept 2 cm as the best info we have, or default to 999 because of the lack of specificity?

For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 020 [2 cm], using the rule "code what you know."

 N/A N/A 2001
20230023

Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are accessioned, and which M Rule applies, to a 2018 pituitary adenoma (8272/0) that was partially resected followed by a 2023 resection of residual disease proving pituitary adenoma/pituitary neuroendocrine tumor (8727/3)? See Discussion.

The patient had residual tumor following the 2018 transsphenoidal resection and underwent an additional surgery after the residual tumor increased in size. Since pituitary adenoma/pituitary neuroendocrine tumor (PitNET) is a new malignant neoplasm for cases diagnosed 2023 and later, should this be a new primary per M5? Or do we disregard the change in behavior and apply rule M2 (single tumor is a single primary) for this scenario?

Update August 2026:

See SINQ 20240038 for an update. This original answer no longer applies.

Original answer:

This case does not fall into the standard rules. WHO criteria for diagnosing pituitary adenoma have recently changed (per 5th Ed WHO CNS book) and we will likely see more PitNET’ s than pituitary adenomas in the future. PitNET may be invasive or non-invasive but the likelihood of the pathologists providing this information is low. Since we don’t know if the 2018 adenoma was a PitNET based on current criteria or if it transformed to the malignant neoplasm, err on the side of caution and abstract a second primary per M5.

This issue is new, and we’ve received numerous questions concerning pathologist reviewing older cases of pituitary adenoma and reclassifying them as PitNET using the new criteria.

 Brain and CNS N/A 2023
20020003 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can you code the tumor size if you have the aggregate size given for two or more tumor masses?

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.

 N/A N/A 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.

 Lung N/A 2002
20071128 MP/H Rules--Urinary: How many primaries are abstracted when a patient has a May 2000 invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder, a November 2004 invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the right ureter and a May 2007 urothelial carcinoma in situ of both the left and right ureters?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Using the pre-2007 multiple primary rules, the PTCC of the bladder in 2000 and the invasive TCC of the right ureter in Nov. 2004 would have been abstracted as separate primaries.

Use the 2007 MP/H rules to evaluate the May 2007 diagnosis. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M8. The May 2007 diagnosis is the same primary.

Rule M4 does not apply because of the 2000 bladder primary. A clarification will be added to M4 to stress that for the urinary rules, any urinary tumor up to the present point in time is counted when applying this rule.

 N/A N/A 2007