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: 10/08/2026 01:43 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20071098 Multiplicity Counter/Date of Multiple Tumors/CS Tumor Size--Lung: How are these fields to be coded when work-up of a malignancy spans a couple of months and reveals developing nodules? See Discussion. Example: Chest CT on 4-26-07 reveals 2.2 cm mass in lingula, left lung, consistent with lung malignancy. Biopsy on 5-18-07 shows non-small cell carcinoma. PET scan on 6-6-07 shows left upper lobe mass consistent with known non-small cell lung carcinoma. Second developing mass increasing in prominence since 4-07 in periphery of left upper lobe, approximately 3.6 cm which may represent intrapulmonary mets or second primary neoplasm. At least 3 additional intrapulmonary nodules have developed since 4-07, two in the left upper lobe and one in the right upper lobe, suspicious for mets.

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Multiplicity Counter/Date of Multiple Tumors

Apply the multiple primary rules first and record the number of tumors determined to be a single primary in Multiplicity Counter. Record the corresponding date in Date of Multiple Tumors. These data items may be updated once if future tumors are determined to be the same primary as the initial diagnosis.

CS Tumor Size

Include information gathered through

  • completion of surgery(ies) in first course of treatment OR

  • all information available within four months of the date of diagnosis in the absence of disease progression

    • WHICHEVER IS LONGER.

    Metastasis known to have developed after the diagnosis was established should be excluded.

    		 Lung N/A 2007
    		20021058

    Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: When simultaneously diagnosed breast tumors of the same histology in the same breast are stated by the pathologist and/or clinician to be more than one primary, should these be reported as multiple primaries? See discussion.

    For example, based on special pathology studies that showed a difference in appearance between tumors, a pathologist may state that two ductal, NOS tumors diagnosed at the same time in the same breast represent two primaries.

    For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

    Code as a single primary. Follow the guidelines in the SEER Program Code Manual for determining multiple primaries. Simultaneous multiple lesions of the same histologic type in the same site (same breast) are a single primary for SEER, even though the pathologist may perform special studies and state that the patient has more than 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.

    		 Breast N/A 2002
    		20021096 Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: What codes are used to represent this field for the four bladder cases described in the discussion section that have a combination of grades mentioned in the pathology reports? See discussion.

    1) Final path diagnosis: papillary transitional cell carcinoma, high grade. Micro description states: High grade, poorly differentiated carcinoma.

    2) Well to moderately differentiated papillary transitional cell carcinoma, grade 1-2/3.

    3) Urothelial carcinoma, high grade (poorly differentiated, grade 3 of 3).

    4) High grade papillary urothelial carcinoma (papillary transitional cell carcinoma, grade 3 out of 4).

    For cases diagnosed January 2004 and forward:

    1) Grade 4. High grade is coded 4. Code the grade stated in the final diagnosis.

    2) Grade 3. Grade 1-2/3 is coded 3. Use the three-grade conversion table in the 2004 SEER manual.

    3) Grade 4. Grade 3 of 3 is coded 4. Use the three-grade conversion table in the 2004 SEER manual.

    4) Grade 3. "Grade 3 out of 4" is coded 3 and is more precise than "high grade."

    		 Bladder N/A 2002
    		20021082

    Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Primary site/EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: How many primaries are represented by an invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the floor of mouth with in situ squamous cell carcinoma involvement of the frenulum?

    For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

    Code the Primary Site field to C04.9 [floor of mouth]. Because the cancer did not INVADE into a neighboring site (through wall, through soft tissue), it just spread along the mucosa (in situ) to involve the frenulum, this is one primary.

    For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, in situ extension via mucosal spread to the frenulum is ignored for purposes of coding EOD-Extension.

    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.

    		 Head & Neck N/A 2002
    		20210002

    Multiple Primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned for a patient diagnosed with therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome (t-MDS) (9920/3) in 2015 followed by a 2020 diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome, NOS (MDS, NOS) (9989/3)? See Discussion.

    Patient has a history of B-cell lymphoma with multimodality treatment in 2002. Lab work in 2015 showed multilineage dysplasia leading to a diagnosis of therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome. Patient presents in 2020 for a bone marrow biopsy now showing low-grade MDS. The MDS appears to have the same multilineage dysplasia previously identified.

    MDS, NOS is not listed in the Heme DB as a possible transformation of t-MDS, nor is it listed as a Same Primary for t-MDS. Likewise, t-MDS is not listed as a more specific myelodysplastic syndrome, a transformation of MDS NOS, or a Same Primary as MDS, NOS.

    The first M rule that applies to this case is M15, and the Multiple Primaries Calculator indicates that the MDS, NOS should be a new primary.

    Abstract separate primaries using Rule M15 of the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms (Heme) Manual. The Heme Database states: Excluded from this category are progression of myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) and evolution of primary MDS or primary MDS/MPN to acute myeloid leukemia (AML); in each of these latter cases evolution to AML is part of the natural history of the primary disease and it may be impossible to distinguish natural progression from therapy-related changes. There is no indication of transformation.

    		 Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms N/A 2021
    		20020063 EOD-Extension--Breast: How do we interpret "dermal lymphovascular space invasion" and "dermal lymphovascular invasion" for extension? See discussion. A breast path report states tumor invades dermal lymphovascular spaces. Also, pathologists sometimes state "dermal lymphovascular invasion". Are both these terms synonymous with dermal lymphatic invasion?

    For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

    Dermal lymphovascular invasion and tumor in dermal lymphatics would both be coded as dermal lymphatic invasion.

    		 Breast N/A 2002
    		20041018 Grade, Differentiation: Can grade be assigned based on a thin prep if there is no grade in the other pathology reports? See Discussion.

    Example:

    Vag & Cervical Thin-Prep: Adenocarcinoma, endometrial, high grade.

    Resected Uterus and Left Adnexa: Endometrial papillary serous carcinoma arising in an endometrial polyp.

    		 When it is the only source specifying the grade, code grade from the thin prep. N/A N/A 2004
    		20210010

    Reportability--Head & Neck: Is chondrosarcoma, grade 1 reportable for cases diagnosed 01/01/2021 and later? See Discussion.

    Neither the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines nor the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Guidelines (including Tables 1-7) address reportability changes for chondrosarcoma grade 1. In the Solid Tumor Rules Manual, Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions, Table 7 (Tumors of Odontogenic and Maxillofacial Bone (Mandible, Maxilla)), Chrondrosarcoma grade 2/3 (9220/3) is included as a subtype/variant for sarcomas in these sites, but it does not address chrondrosarcoma, grade 1.

    The ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table lists Chondrosarcoma, grade 1 as morphology code 9222/1. If Chondrosarcoma, grade 1 is no longer a reportable tumor for cases diagnosed 01/01/2021 and later, why wasn't this reportability change included in the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines? If the standard setters chose not to include this reportability change, shouldn't Table 7 also indicate that all chondrosarcomas (NOS, grade 1, grade 2 or grade 3) are reportable for cases diagnosed 2018 and later?

    How are registrars to make reportability and histology coding decisions for chondrosarcomas when neither source provides clear instructions regarding these tumors?

    Chrondrosarcoma, grade 1 (9222/1) is not reportable according to the Reportability section in the 2021 SEER Manual. The histology (9222/1) is listed in ICD-O-3.2 as a synonym for atypical cartilaginous tumor (preferred term).

    In general, the tables do not include non-reportable terms and codes. Registrars should refer to their standard setter (to whom they submit data) for reportable neoplasms. Currently, /0 and /1 neoplasms are reportable for central nervous system sites only. ICD-O-3.2 includes all neoplasms but that does not mean they are reportable. If a facility collects non-malignant neoplasms, use the corresponding ICD-O code in 3.2.

    		 Head & Neck N/A 2021
    		20210014

    Solid Tumor Rules (2018, 2021)/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many primaries should be reported for a 4/2019 diagnosis of left upper lobe (LUL) adenosquamous carcinoma (left lingula mass biopsy: adenosquamous carcinoma; LUL lung biopsy: pulmonary adenocarcinoma, stated to be a collision tumor and single primary per the Tumor Board), treated with radiation followed by an enlarging LUL mass in 7/2020 found to be squamous cell carcinoma? See Discussion.

    The physician stated the prior LUL adenosquamous carcinoma was PD-L1 negative and the LUL squamous cell carcinoma is PD-L1 positive and is calling it a new primary.

    5/22-7/3/19 6000x30 IMRT Photons LUL lung Chemo refused Not a Surg candidate

    10/01/2019 CT Chest: IMP: In comparison to CT chest 03/06/2019 and PET/CT 03/21/2019, left lingular mass has mildly decreased in size. Left apical anterior and posterior lung lesions more anterior lesion appears slightly increased in size, the other slight decreased in size, with adjacent areas of atelectasis and scarring.

    06/23/2020 CT Chest: MP: In comparison to CT chest 10/1/2019, left lingular mass has increased in size concerning for increasing tumor with adjacent thicker focal pleural thickening involving the chest wall, concerning for possible chest wall invasion. Left apical anterior and posterior lung lesions appears more solid in appearance, representing known adeno CA, given that the appearance has changed, is concerning for residual tumor.

    07/06/2020 PET: Hypermetabolic lingular mass and peripheral nodularity has increased in size and FDG avidity on the prior PET/CT. Left apical nodular opacity is difficult to separate from fairly uniform mild left apical pleural hypermetabolism which may be treatment related and/or neoplastic.

    Abstract two primaries: 8560 and 8140 using rule M6. One of the original tumors with adenosquamous now shows only residual SCC following XRT. PD-L-1 is not used to determine multiple primaries. Assuming three tumors (the post-XRT SCC is not a new tumor but residual from one of the adenosquamous tumors) there are two primaries: 8560 and 8140 per M6. For collision tumors, each histology identified in the tumor is used to determine multiple primaries.

    		 Lung N/A 2021
    		20091024

    MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: Are diagnoses in bladder, ureter, renal pelvis, and other urinary made prior to 2007 used in determining multiple primaries? See Discussion.

    Per the General Information for MPH, Rule #3, the rules are effective for cases diagnosed January 1, 2007 and after. Do not use these rules to abstract cases diagnosed prior to January 1, 2007.

    Example: Is a 2006 diagnosis of a renal pelvis primary with the histology 8130/3 and a 2007 diagnosis of a bladder primary with histology 8130/3 "multiple tumors" or is the bladder tumor a new primary because it is a single tumor at the time of diagnosis in 2007?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    Use the 2007 MP/H rules for urinary sites to assess tumors diagnosed in 2007 or later.

    For the example above, use the 2007 rules to determine whether or not the bladder tumor diagnosed in 2007 is a new primary. Use the Multiple Tumors module when comparing a 2007 or later diagnosis to an earlier diagnosis. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M8. The 2007 bladder urothelial tumor is not a new primary since there is an existing 2006 renal pelvis urothelial primary.

    		 N/A N/A 2009