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: 02/18/2026 07:46 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20051003 CS Tumor Size/CS Eval--Breast: How are these fields coded when there is a clinical size recorded but the tumor size is not specified on the pathology report associated with a subsequent resection? See Discussion. 4/8/04 excisional biopsy of 1.5 cm palpable mass. Path: gives a specimen size only and states that there is a nodular firm area that correlates with the clustered microcalcification on radiograph. No pathologic tumor size is given. Would the size be coded to the clinical size of 1.5 cm? The patient did have surgery but the only size available is a clinical one. Because the size is clinical, is the CS Eval field coded to 0 [No surgical resection done. Evaluation based on PE...]?

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.

Clinical size can be coded when the patient has had surgery. For the case above, code the tumor size as 015 [1.5 cm] using the clinical information. The CS Tumor Size/Extent Eval field refers to both tumor size and extension. In this case, record the eval field as 0 or 1 (which ever is appropriate). The tumor size sets the T category unless the resection shows skin or chest wall or dermal lymphatic involvement.

 2005
20061002 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): How many primaries? See Discussion. 5/05 perianal skin bx, 6/05 mapping bx perianal skin, 9/05 punch bx perianal skin: all positive for extramammary Paget Disease. 9/05 Perianal Excision of Paget w/V-Y flap repair. Path: Perianal and anal skin: Extramammary Paget disease associated with: Invasive adenoca of anal canal. Anal margins positive for invasive adenoca. Comment: invasive adenoca with local mucinous features involving the anal margin/end of specimen. This adenoca is in continuity with (associated with) extensively diffuse extramammary Paget disease. Unclear whether the adenoca represents a rectal primary with spread to perianal area, anal gland adenoca or mets. 12/05 AP resection-no residual Paget or invasive neoplasm.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

There is one primary.

Code the histology to 8542 [Paget disease, extramammary]. Code the primary site C210 [anus]. Histology rule 7 on page 87 of the 2004 SPCM applies in this case.

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.

 2006
20051118 CS Tumor Size--Rectum: Should the tumor size be coded to 080 from the colonoscopy size or 075 from the CT scan size? See Discussion. 6/29/04 Colonoscopy with biopsy: near obstructing circumferential friable mass extending from 8 to 16cm above anal verge. 6/30/04 CT Scan Abdomen/Pelvis: 7.5X7.2cm large rectal mass. The patient had radiation with concurrent 5-FU. Surgery is done after treatment.

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.

Code tumor size as 080 (8cm). Code the largest pretreatment size recorded when there is preoperative systemic treatment.

 2005
20051119 CS Eval--Colon: When the surgical resection occurs after radiation or chemo, how is the tumor size/extension evaluation field coded when there is no mention of the tumor size or extension in the surgical resection pathology report? See Discussion. 6/30/04 CT Scan abd/pelvis: 7.5x7.2 cm large rectal mass with l cm nodular densities in perirectal region probably adenopathy; irregularity of perirectal soft tissue which could be due to tumor infiltration. 7/26/04 Patient has radiation therapy and 5FU. 10/19/04 LAR: MD Adenoca rectum with regional node mets (3/8).

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.Based on the information provided above, code CS Tumor Size and Extension from CT scan. Code CS TS/Ext eval 5 [Surgical resection performed with pre-surgical treatment...size based on clinical evidence].

Code CS lymph nodes using information from resection. Code CS Reg Nodes eval 6 [Regional LN removed...with pre-surgical treatment...based on pathologic evidence].

 2005
20051120 CS Eval--Colon: Should 1 [No surgical resection done...] or 3 [Surgical resection performed...] be used to correctly reflect this field when a surgical observation is "adherent to duodenum" but the extension per the pathology is stated to be to the "subserosal tissue"? See Discussion. 7/2/04 Op Findings 5 cm mass in mid transverse colon involving also the right colon; mass was adherent to duodenum without obvious invasion. 7/2/04 Path: Rt & Transverse Colon: 6x5 cm mass, micro: MD Adenoca with invasion of subserosal tissue; margins neg. 17/17 colic LNs negative.

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.For the case described above, code extension as 46 [Adherent to other organ...no microscopic tumor found in adhesion]. Code CS TS/Ext eval as 3 [Surgical resection performed...].

Surgery was performed for this case. The fact that the adherence to the duodenum was proven not to be tumor involvement should be coded as 3 in CS TS/Ext Eval. By using eval code 3, the case will map to a pathologic T indicating that the patient had resective surgery. Eval code 1 would map to a clinical T, incorrect for this case.

 2005
20230003

SEER Manual/Reportability--Ambiguous Terminology:  Please clarify the reportability and relevant date ranges of the following ambiguous terminology: almost certainly, most certainly, and malignant until proven otherwise.  See Discussion.

SINQ 20180104 indicates, in the absence of further info, the terms “almost certainly” and “until proven otherwise” are NOT reportable. There is no date range provided for this answer.

SINQ 20200027 indicates, in the absence of further info, the term “most certainly” IS reportable. There is no date range provided for this answer.

SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2022 indicates, in the absence of further info, the terms “until proven otherwise” and “most certainly” ARE reportable.

Essentially, we are hoping for an update of SINQ 20180104 due to 2022 reportability change. Clarification to the equivalence of “almost certainly” and “most certainly” would also be helpful.

Use the ambiguous terminology list as a guide in the absence of additional information after reviewing all available information and consulting the physician who diagnosed and/or staged the tumor. 

Equivalent to "Diagnostic for" malignancy or reportable diagnosis

  • most certainly carcinoma
  • malignant until proven otherwise

Not Equivalent to "Diagnostic for" malignancy or reportable diagnosis

  • almost certainly ("almost" conveys uncertainty in comparison to "most" as in "most certainly")

We will update SINQ 20180104.

 2023
20110009 Diagnostic confirmation/Date of diagnosis--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are these fields coded for a 2/11/10 negative bone marrow biopsy with cytogenetic abnormalities if the physician makes a clinical diagnosis of refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia on 2/25/10? See Discussion.

2/11/10 bone marrow biopsy revealed "mild trilineal dysplastic changes in conjunction with chronicity of cytopenias is worrisome for MDS." Cytogenetics are positive for 5q deletion. Clinicopathologic correlation required for final diagnosis. On 2/25/10 the physician confirms a diagnosis of refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia.

Is the date of diagnosis 2/11/10 with diagnostic confirmation of 3 or 2/25/10 with diagnostic confirmation of 8?

The date of diagnosis is 2/25/10 and diagnostic confirmation is coded to 8 [clinical diagnosis only].

As the cytogenetics state, you need clinicopathologic correlation to get confirm a reportable diagnosis. There is no reportable diagnosis from the bone marrow biopsy. The cytogenetics were done (the pathologic part) and then the physician confirmed refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia [9985/3] (the clinical part). The diagnostic process and the determination of a reportable diagnosis were completed when the clinician made the statement that this is refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia.

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.

2011
20091125

Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Thyroid: Should a thyroid case be accessioned based only on a cytology that is consistent with papillary carcinoma? See Discussion.

Instructions in the 2007 SPCSM state that we are not to accession a case based only on a suspicious cytology. Does this rule apply only to the term "suspicious" or does it apply to all ambiguous terms? Example: FNA of thyroid nodule is consistent with papillary carcinoma.

 Do not accession the case if the cytology is the only information in the medical record. The phrase "Do not accession a case based only on suspicious cytology" means that the cytology is the only information in the record. If there is other information that supports the suspicion of cancer (radiology reports, physician statements, surgery), then accession the case. The phrase "suspicious cytology" includes all of the ambiguous terms. 2009
20110003 MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: Which MP/H rule applies and what is the histology code for a "large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (arising in adenocarcinoma)"? See Discussion.

Per the pathology report COMMENT section, "In addition to usual adenocarcinoma, a significant portion of this tumor displays features consistent with large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, an aggressive neoplasm which has a poorer prognosis than adenocarcinoma of comparable stage."

Is histology coded to 8574/3 [adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation] for this case?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Code histology to 8244/3 [composite carcinoid]. Rule H9 applies: Code 8244 [composite carcinoid] when the diagnosis is adenocarcinoma and carcinoid tumor. WHO describes these tumors as "mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma (MANEC)." They have components of adenocarcinoma mixed with high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC), which can be either small cell or large cell.

The next version of the MP/H rules for colon will make this clear by adding a note regarding this issue to Rule H9.

2011
20031028

EOD-Lymph Nodes--Head & Neck: If a pre-treatment description of a chain of lymph nodes doesn't meet the criteria for involvement but the post-treatment description of the same chain of lymph nodes does, should those nodes be counted as involved in coding EOD? See Description.

(Primary site = larynx)

9/12/02 CT neck showed right cervical chain adenopathy. After chemotherapy, an 11/18/02 CT soft tissue of neck showed decrease in size by 50% of what was probably necrotic metastatic node to right mandibular angle.

The term "lymphadenopathy" should be ignored when determining involvement of lymph nodes per SEER. In this case, a probable necrotic metastatic node is mentioned in a subsequent CT taken after treatment.

Should lymph node involvement be coded to 9 based on the 9/12/02 CT or coded to 4 because of the mention of a decrease in size of what was probably a metatastic node on the 11/18/03 CT?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, code EOD using the best information available. In this example, the post-treatment description of lymph nodes. A post-treatment description of lymph nodes can be used to code lymph node involvement in the absence of disease progression. Pre-operative treatment does not affect lymph node involvement.

Case example: Code lymph nodes as involved (codes 1-4 depending on size and number) based on the later CT report.

 2003