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 06:41 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20021184 EOD-Lymph Nodes--Head & Neck: When a physician provides only "Stage IV" (i.e., an abbreviated stage) for a right posterior tongue primary with lateral extension into the oropharynx and hypopharynx, can you assume "palpable" level 2, 3 and 5 lymph nodes are involved?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 9 [Unknown], based on the information provided.

The physician's statement of an N category from a TNM may be used to determine lymph node involvement in the absence of other information. However, you cannot assume nodal involvement based on the incomplete staging information of "Stage IV" for a base of tongue primary. For this primary site, extension into the hypopharynx from this primary is equivalent to T4/Stage IV. Therefore you cannot assume the clinician's assessment of the case as Stage IV represents his assessment of lymph node involvement.

 Head & Neck N/A 2002
20010154 Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: What code is used to represent this field when there are invasive and in situ components in a tumor, but only the in situ component is graded (e.g., Invasive ductal carcinoma with high grade ductal carcinoma in situ)? Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable]. The grade is taken from the invasive component only. N/A N/A 2001
20021188 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Testis: How many primaries should be reported when seminoma is diagnosed simultaneously in both testicles and both tumors are encapsulated?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Report this cases as two primaries, unless there is information in the record confirming one primary.

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 2002
20021206 EOD-Extension--Breast: The SEER coding scheme classifies the in situ portion as less than 25% [code 14] or equal to or greater than 25% [code 15]. How do you code a pathologist's statement of "less than or equal to 25%"? See discussion. "insitu ca constitutes less than or equal to 25% of the total mass."

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 14 [invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in Tumor Size AND in situ described as minimal (less than 25%)]. The pathologist did not use a code as defined by SEER. For cases described as "less than or equal to 25%", choose the lower of the two EOD code choices.

 Breast N/A 2002
20150044

Reportability--Ovary: Is micropapillary serous carcinoma (MPSC) of the ovary reportable? What are the differences between “noninvasive" and “low malignant potential?"  See discussion.

Pathology report reads left ovary: noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC), fragmented; right ovarian excrescence and posterior cul-de-sac: noninvasive implants identified; right ovary: noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC), scattered autoimplants (noninvasive); tumor is present on ovarian surface, noninvasive autoimplants

Noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC) of the ovary is reportable. Assign code 8460/2, applying the ICD-O-3 matrix concept to this noninvasive carcinoma. Noninvasive can be used as a synonym for in situ, ICD-O-3 behavior code /2. See page 66 in the softcover ICD-O-3. Low malignant potential (LMP) means that the neoplasm is not malignant, but has some chance of behaving in a malignant fashion. LMP can be used as a synonym for ICD-O-3 behavior code /1, see page 66.

Ovary N/A 2015
20031007 EOD Extension--Lung: Do we ignore pericardial effusion seen on a CXR if a subsequent lobectomy reveals only a localized tumor? See discussion. Note 6 in the lung EOD scheme instructs us to assume that a pleural effusion is negative if a resection is done. Does this also apply to a pericardial effusion? For example, if a pericardial effusion is seen on CXR, and a subsequent lobectomy reveals only a localized tumor, should the effusion be ignored? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Ignore pericardial effusion which is negative for tumor. Assume that a pericardial effusion is negative if a resection is done and the tumor is pathologically confirmed to be localized. Lung N/A 2003
20021003 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Whenever two hollow organs are diagnosed simultaneously with the same histology, one being invasive and the other in situ, can one assume that mucosal spread has occurred and that this situation represents one primary? In the absence of a physician statement, how do you determine mucosal spread from one organ to another?

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.

 N/A N/A 2002
20140034

Reportability--Ovary: Can you clarify when widely metastatic borderline histologies of the ovary and various other sites are reportable? See discussion.

SINQ 20130176 states that an adult granulosa cell tumor of the ovary with metastases is malignant. However, SINQ 20091087 states that a borderline tumor of the appendix with metastasis is not reportable.

The first statement of 20130176 “though granulosa cell tumor is coded 8620/1, the presence of peritoneal or lymph node metastases indicate the tumor is malignant and coded as /3” does not coincide with the second statement of “the behavior of borderline/LMP ovarian epithelial tumors is determined by the ovarian primary, even though there may be peritoneal implants or metastatic disease in the lymph nodes”. If the ovarian metastases do make this a reportable malignancy, can this line of thinking be used to determine reportability for borderline histologies for other sites such as the appendix?

The case in 20130176 is adult granulosa cell tumor. The answer points out an important difference in the way "metastases" from this histology should be interpreted versus low malignant potential ovarian epithelial tumors. Metastases from adult granulosa cell tumor of the ovary indicates a malignant primary. So-called metastases from a LMP epithelial tumor do not indicate a malignant primary when the metastatic deposits are also LMP/borderline in behavior.

Do not apply instructions for ovarian cases to other primary sites including appendix.

Ovary N/A 2014
20031054 Grade, Differentiation: Is grade always coded to 4 for a diagnosis of Ewing's sarcoma?

Do not code the ICD-O-3 grade for Ewing sarcoma unless documented in the record.

In the TNM system, grade is required to place Ewing sarcoma into a stage group. For TNM staging purposes, Ewing sarcoma is classified as G4. Do not apply TNM rules to ICD-O coding.

 N/A N/A 2003
20081026 MP/H rules/Multiple primaries: Is a 2007 cytology diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in bile duct a new primary for a patient with a 2005 diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of gallbladder? See Discussion.

A case abstracted for an adenocarcinoma of gallbladder (C23.9) in 2005. In 2007, cytology diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in bile duct(C24.0). Oncologist calls this recurrence. There is no pathologist statement of recurrence.

Using Other Sites multiple primary rules, rule M10 indicates this is multiple primaries. Sequence 01 dx in 2005 and sequence 02 dx in 2007. Is this correct? There is no statement of a primary tumor; the MP/H rules talk in terms of mass, lesion, tumor in a primary site.

 For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract the 2007 bile duct diagnosis as a new primary unless it is described as metastatic. N/A N/A 2008