Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20020030 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: 1) Can we add "Imaging studies" to those EOD schemes that currently do not include this on their priority list for coding size? 2) When an EOD scheme already lists specific types of imaging studies, are we limited to only those types of procedures or can any imaging study be used to code size? See discussion. | How do we determine where to add "imaging studies" to the priority listing? Currently the hierarchy differs for primaries that currently include imaging studies on their EOD schemes. For example, on the breast EOD imaging ranks lower than the physical exam while on the thyroid EOD imaging ranks higher than the physical exam. | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
1) You may add "Imaging" to the size priority list for all EOD schemes that currently do not include it. Prioritize it just above the physical exam for these sites.
2) You may use the information from any imaging technique to code tumor size, even for those sites such as breast and bladder where specific imaging tests are mentioned. |
N/A | N/A | 2002 |
|
|
20100073 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient is diagnosed on 4/7/10 by a bone marrow biopsy with myelodysplastic syndrome, refractory anemia (RAEB2) and on a 7/27/10 bone marrow biopsy with progression to acute myelogenous leukemia with 40% blasts (AML)? | Updated May 2026
Accession two primaries per Rule M10, the first is a chronic neoplasm RAEB2 [9983/3] and the second is an acute neoplasm AML, NOS [9861/3]. Rule M10 states abstract as multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed in a chronic phase (MDS RAEB2) and an acute disease (AML) is diagnosed after the initial clinical workup of the chronic neoplasm is completed. This is the rule that fits your case.
There are several important pieces of information. There were two bone marrows biopsies; one confirmed the chronic disease and a second confirmed the acute disease. The dates of the bone marrows are more than 3 months apart. Because you have a chronic and an acute disease, Rules M8-M13 in the coding manual apply. |
Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms | N/A | 2010 | |
|
|
20021023 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor/EOD-Extension--Breast: How do you code extension when the tumor in the breast is in situ and the regional axillary lymph nodes are positive? See discussion. |
For example, what extension code is used for a 4.5 cm DCIS (no invasive ca found in excisional biopsy or mastectomy specimen) with mets to 01/07 LNs? |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 045 [4.5 cm]. Document how the size was determined in the EOD-Extension field. Code the EOD-Extension field to 16 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in Tumor Size (size of invasive component not stated) AND proportions of in situ and invasive not known]. By virtue of the lymph node metastasis, this must be an invasive breast carcinoma. The size of the invasive component is unknown. |
Breast | N/A | 2002 |
|
|
20021029 | Grade, Differentiation--Breast: Should the Bloom-Richardson (BR) grade (low, intermediate, high) have a higher priority than terminology (i.e., well differentiated)? See discussion. | 1. Grade of infiltrating carcinoma 1) Nuclear grade low; 2) Histological grade-intermediate; 3) Mitotic rate-low, 4) BR score 4.
2. Poorly differentiated but grade II/III. Microscopic comment: Slides show infiltrating ca which is P.D. in that it forms no tubules, but is grade 2 out of 3 in the modified BR scheme. It is ductal type with large moderately pleomorphic tumor cells displaying few mitoses.
3. Invasive moderately differentiated duct cell carcinoma with the following features: Modified BR grade: III/III (2+3+3=8). |
For cases diagnosed prior to 2004:
Code the example cases as follows:
1. Grade 2. Histologic grade terminology ("intermediate") has the highest priority.
2. Grade 3. Terminology ("poorly differentiated") has the highest priority.
3. Grade 2. Histologic grade terminology "moderately differentiated" has priority. |
Breast | N/A | 2002 |
|
|
20021048 | EOD-Lymph Nodes: If chemotherapy or radiation is given prior to the excision of an involved lymph node, should the size of the metastasis within the lymph node be coded from the subsequent surgical pathology report? See discussion. | For several sites, the size of the metastasis in an involved lymph node is integrated into the EOD-Lymph Node field. Should the size of the metastasis mentioned on the pathology report be ignored if the patient received radiation or chemotherapy prior to having the lymph node removed? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Record the size of a lymph node metastasis described in the pathology report for cases that had pre-surgical treatment. However, if both the pre-treatment and post-treatment size of the lymph node metastases are available, use the larger size when coding the EOD-Lymph Node field. |
N/A | N/A | 2002 |
|
|
20100104 | Grade--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is the phrase "aberrant T-cell expression" enough to code the grade field to T-cell when the final diagnosis on the pathology report is "AML with aberrant T-cell antigen expression"? | Yes. Code grade to 5 [T-cell]. The T cell receptor, or TCR, is a molecule found on the surface of T lymphocytes (or T cells). | Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms | N/A | 2010 | |
|
|
20140031 | MP/H Rules: Regarding rules for Renal Pelvis, ureters, bladder & urethra - Please clarify Rule M8. Rule M8 references Table 1, but table 1 is a table of histologies not primary sites, Rule M8 also seems to contradict Table 2 and Rule M10. Does it matter where the first primary is, ie bladder then urethra or bladder then renal pelvis? |
Table 2 does not apply to diagnoses in 2007 and later. A watermark over (or near) Table 2 states "Do not use for cases diagnosed on or after 2007." Table 2 lists previous SEER site groupings for cases prior to 2007.
The MP/H rules are in hierarchical order. Use the first rule that applies. When Rule M8 applies, there is no need to check Rule M10. Rule M8 is for the urinary sites listed and derives single primary. Rule M10 is for all sites, except the sites listed in Rule M8, and derives multiple primaries.
It does not matter where the first primary is, i.e. bladder then urethra or bladder then renal pelvis. If there are two or more tumors in two or more of these four sites listed in Rule M8 with histologies listed on Table 1, abstract as a single primary. |
N/A | N/A | 2014 | |
|
|
20081106 | MP/H Rules--Breast: How many primaries for the following? Breast lumpectomy: Three foci of invasive ductal carcinoma. Tumor nodule #1 - Invasive ductal carcinoma. Tumor nodule #2 - Invasive ductal carcinoma with tubular features. Tumor nodule #3 - Invasive tubular carcinoma. See Discussion. |
According to the MP/H rules, this case is reportable as three primaries with histologies coded 8500, 8523 and 8211. However, our QC staff is having a problem accepting this. When the pathologist specifies that a ductal carcinoma has tubular features or is tubular type, isn't s/he saying that tubular is a type of duct? In addition, the first line of the FDx states, "Three foci of ductal carcinoma," which indicates that the pathologists interprets the three nodules to be ductal carcinoma. |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: These three tumors are three separate primaries. Rule M12 applies. According to the 2007 MP/H rules, tubular carcinoma is not a type of duct carcinoma. Among the paramount reasons for writing the MP/H rules are the non-standard usage of nomenclature by physicians and the inconsistency in interpretation of these non-standard phrases. The MP/H rules must be applied consistently by each cancer registrar in order for data to be comparable across registries. |
Breast | N/A | 2008 |
|
|
20091042 | Multiple primaries--Hematopoietic, NOS: How many primaries should be coded when a patient has multiple occurrences of plasmacytoma followed by a diagnosis of multiple myeloma? See Discussion. | Example: Patient had a diagnosis on February 2003, plasmacytoma of the sinus; June 2003, plasmacytoma of the alveolar ridge; July 2003, plasmacytoma of the skin; and June 2004, multiple myeloma.
If this represents a transformation of plasmacytomas to multiple myeloma, will the information on multiple myeloma be available for statistical and research purposes? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Accession this case as plasmacytoma diagnosed in Feb. 2003. Each of the subsequent diagnoses are not abstracted as new primaries. They are the "same," one primary only, according to the Definition of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies (the tri-fold heme table). The 2003 diagnosis is a classic example of extraosseous plasmacytoma (9734/3). Plasmacytoma and multiple myeloma would be two primaries in the new hematopoietic rules taking effect in 2010. For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ. |
N/A | N/A | 2009 |
|
|
20190051 | Update to current manual/Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code and what M Rule applies when there are multiple specific subtypes identified using various equivalent lung terms but only one is stated to be predominant? See Discussion. |
Example: Lung resection final diagnosis is Lung adenocarcinoma, see Summary Cancer Data, and the Summary Cancer Data (CAP Synoptic Report) states Histologic type: Invasive adenocarcinoma, solid predominant. Other Subtypes Present: 20% acinar and <5% micropapillary components. Instruction 1B and Note 1 for Coding Multiple Histologies (Lung Histology Rules) indicates type, subtype, component, and predominantly are all terms that may be used to code the most specific histology. In this case, the multiple specific histologies were documented using all of those terms. Note 2 for instruction 1B states predominantly describes the greatest amount of tumor and when it is used for the listed subtypes of adenocarcinoma, that subtype should be coded. However, Note 2 does not indicate that the other subtypes are ignored when one is identified to be predominant and the others are identified as subtype or component only. |
Code to invasive adenocarcinoma, solid predominant (8230/3), based on the example, using Lung Solid Tumor Rules Coding Multiple Histologies instruction #1 that says to code the specific histology where the most specific histology may be described as component, majority/majority of, or predominantly, in this case, 75%. Apply Rule M2 as this appears to be a single tumor with multiple histologies based on the information provided. The rules will be updated to add a new H rule and to reviseTable 2 when two or more histologies described as predominant are present. |
Lung | N/A | 2019 |
An official website of the United States government
