Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20051142 | Reportability--Skin: Is a non-small cell carcinoma [8046/3] of the skin SEER reportable? |
Non-genital skin primaries with a histology code equal to or less than 8110 are not reportable to SEER; therefore, the combination of C44_ and 8046/3 is not reportable. |
Skin | N/A | 2005 | |
|
|
20010145 | EOD-Extension: There is a one to many relationship between T values in TNM staging and SEER EOD-Extension values (one T value can be coded to many extension values). For most situations, we can typically code EOD-Extension to the lowest value in the range available for that T value per the SEER guidelines. But, what happens if another tumor feature, such as tumor size, was involved in the assignment of a T value? See discussion. | Example: Physician stages lung tumor as T2. The lowest extension code, 20, doesn't precisely fit the guidelines for a T2 tumor because the T2 stage may be based on the size of the tumor, which doesn't have anything to do with the EOD-Extension field. Should EOD-Extension be coded to 30 rather than 20? | The criteria for AJCC stage T2 consists of both size and tumor extension values. Size of tumor is recorded in the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field. If you determine that size is the physician's sole criteria for assigning a T2 value, code an EOD-Extension value that reflects more specific information than 30 [localized, NOS]. Code to 10 or 25, depending on the case.
If the tumor size is not provided, and there is only a clinician statement that describes the lung tumor as a stage T2, code EOD-Extension to 20, the numerically lowest equivalent EOD-Extension code for the lung T2 category. |
N/A | N/A | 2001 |
|
|
20110143 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many and what primary site(s) are to be accessioned when biopsies of clavicular and neck skin lesions are both consistent with mycosis fungoides? See Discussion. |
Per the Heme DB and Manual, this is a single primary; however, per the MP/H Rules, this would be multiple primaries. Which rules apply to this case? |
Updated May 2026 When there is a question of whether the SEER MP/H Rules (2007-2017), Solid Tumor Rules (2018+) or Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Rules (2010+) apply, check the histology and refer to the Case Reportability Instructions in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Manual. All ICD-O-3 morphology codes in the range 9590 - 9992 are included in the Hematopoietic Rules. Mycosis Fungoides [9700/3] is included in this range. Therefore, the SEER MP/H Rules do not apply to mycosis fungoides. This case should be accessioned as a single primary: mycosis fungoides [9700/3] of the skin, NOS [C449]. Per Rule M2 abstract a single primary when there is a single histology. Note that in the Primary Site(s) section of the Heme DB, it states the primary site must always be coded to skin (C440 - C449) for mycosis fungoides. Because the primary site is stated in this section of the Heme DB, it is not necessary to use the Primary Site Rules to determine the primary site. Code the primary site to C449 [skin, NOS] because the patient has multiple sites of skin involvement and there is no documentation indicating which subsite of skin was the origin of the mycosis fungoides. SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx. |
Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms | N/A | 2011 |
|
|
20150046 | Reportability--Appendix: Is the appendix the primary site for a low grade mucinous appendiceal neoplasm (LAMN) with diffuse peritoneal dissemination? See discussion. |
Patient had an appendectomy revealing a low grade mucinous appendiceal neoplasm (LAMN) with diffuse peritoneal dissemination. Patient now with cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), which revealed metastatic disease in the abdomen, omentum, pelvic peritoneum, peri-cecal, and gallbladder. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2022 Low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) is not reportable, even when it spreads within the peritoneal cavity, according to our expert pathologist consultant. Peritoneal spread of this /1 neoplasm does not indicate malignancy. It is still /1 when there is spread of LAMN in the peritoneal cavity. |
N/A | N/A | 2015 |
|
|
20150047 | Reportability--Bladder: Is a positive UroVysion test alone diagnostic of bladder cancer? See discussion. |
The UroVysion website says that standard procedures, e.g., cytology, cystoscopy, take precedence over the UroVysion test. The Quest Diagnostics website says that "A positive result is consistent with a diagnosis of bladder cancer or bladder cancer recurrence, either in the bladder or in another site within the urinary system. A negative result is suggestive of the absence of bladder cancer but does not rule it out." Would we pick up the case if the UroVysion test was positive but the standard procedures were negative or non-diagnostic? |
Do not report the case based on UroVysion test results alone. Report the case if there is a physician statement of malignancy and/or the patient was treated for cancer. |
Bladder | N/A | 2015 |
|
|
20021039 | Grade, Differentiation--Breast: How do we code grade for a breast primary diagnosis of "Low grade invasive duct, modified Bloom-Richardson grade II/III (tubule formation 2, nuclear grade 1, mitotic rate 1)"? This appears to add up to a Bloom-Richardson score of 4, which does not fit with a Bloom-Richardson II/III. | Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 1 [grade I] using the information from the BR score.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Grade or differentiation information from breast pathology reports is used in the following priority order: 1. Terminology (well, moderately, poorly) 2. Histologic grade (grade I, grade II) 3. BR scores 4. BR grade 5. Nuclear grade
On the hierarchical list for coding breast grade, the first two priorities do not apply to this case, but the third (Bloom-Richardson scores) does. Add the BR information (2+1+1) for a total score of 4, which translates to BR low grade (code 1). The statement of "II/III" may be a typo that should state I/III. |
Breast | N/A | 2002 | |
|
|
20051067 | Reportability--Lung: Is sclerosing hemangioma of the lung with multiple regional lymph nodes metastases reportable? |
No, it is not reportable. According to the WHO Classification of Lung Tumours, sclerosing hemangioma "behaves in a clinically benign fashion...Reported cases with hilar or mediastinal lymph node involvement do not have a worse prognosis." |
Lung | N/A | 2005 | |
|
|
20031015 | EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: How is the following guideline of "any mention of lymph nodes is considered indicative of involvement" applied for EOD-Extension of lymphoma cases when there is a discrepancy between physicians as to the stage at diagnosis? See discussion. | A biopsy of mesenteric nodes confirmed lymphoma. A bone marrow biopsy was negative. A CT of the chest indicates "small mediastinal and bilateral hilar nodes, but without convincing adenopathy." The case was Stage 2 per the oncologist and Stage 3 per the surgeon's TNM form. | For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:
Based on the information provided for this example, the lymphoma involves one site, mesenteric nodes. Code EOD extension as 10 [Involvement of a single lymph node region]. The statement "For lymphomas, any mention of lymph nodes is indicative of involvement" refers to the terms in the paragraph above it on page 8 of the EOD manual: Palpable, enlarged, visible swelling, shotty, lymphadenopathy. While these terms are ignored for other malignancies, they should not be ignored for lymphomas. None of these terms apply to the example provided here. According to the CT, the mediastinal and hilar nodes are "small" "without convincing adenopathy." In other words, the mediastinal and hilar nodes are negative. |
Lymphoma | N/A | 2003 |
|
|
20100076 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: If not specified as primary, idiopathic, or essential, is thrombocytosis, NOS reportable? | Updated May 2026 Thrombocytosis, NOS is not reportable for any year of diagnosis.
Unless the disease is specified as primary, idiopathic, essential, or the physician states there is a myeloproliferative neoplasm, the term thrombocytosis, NOS is not reportable. Thrombocytosis, NOS, is the presence of high platelet counts in the blood. Thrombocytosis can be associated with chronic infections and other diseases as well as with myeloproliferative disease.
|
Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms | N/A | 2010 | |
|
|
20100050 | Reportability--Colon: Would a carcinoid tumor, NOS, of the appendix with perineural or angiolymphatic invasion be reportable if there is no mention of malignancy in the pathology report? |
Carcinoid, NOS, of the appendix diagnosed in 2015 or later is reportable.
For cases diagnosed prior to 2015
Carcinoids of the appendix are reportable when they meet any of the following conditions.
Note that the implants/involvement must be designated as malignant. Many benign tumors will spawn implants that are also benign. If implants are benign, this is not a reportable tumor. |
N/A | N/A | 2010 |
An official website of the United States government
