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: 05/06/2026 21:50 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20010036 Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology for a single lesion with "metaplastic carcinoma" and the majority of tumor has sarcomatoid appearance? Squamous cell carcinoma and high grade intraductal carcinoma are also present. Is the term "sarcomatoid" equivalent to sarcoma?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

For cases diagnosed on or after 1/1/2001: Code the Histology field to 8575/3 [metaplastic carcinoma]. Sarcomatoid is not coded as sarcoma.

The terms metaplastic carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma and intraductal carcinoma are used, but only the metaplastic and squamous cell carcinomas are invasive. Metaplastic, loosely defined, means tissue that is not normal.

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.

 2001
20010144 EOD-Extension--Cervix: How do you code tumor extension described as "the in situ lesion extends from the cervix to the mucosa of the vagina"? See discussion. Example: Cone biopsy of cervix and vaginal vault both show ca in situ. The op report stated: "lesion extending from the left lateral portion of the cervix onto the left lateral portion of the vagina." The pathologist stated it "appeared to be an in situ lesion extending from the cervix to the mucosa of the vagina."

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the Primary Site to C53.9 [Cervix uteri] and the EOD-Extension filed to 00 [in situ]. In situ is a measurement of invasion. Extension of the cervical in situ carcinoma via the mucosa to the vagina does not affect the EOD extension code.

 2001
20010104 Date of Diagnosis--Lung: Based on Note 7 in the lung EOD, should the Date of Diagnosis field be coded to an earlier CT scan date with a reported diagnosis of "RUL mass with mediastinal lymphadenopathy" or to the later biopsy date with a reported diagnosis of small cell carcinoma? See discussion. Note 7 states that "mediastinal lymphadenopathy" indicates involved lymph nodes for lung primaries. Should the date of diagnosis be back-dated to the date of the scan?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

No, code the Date of Diagnosis field to the later biopsy date. Note 7 is intended for use in coding the EOD-Extension field, not the Date of Diagnosis field. The earlier scan has a diagnosis of RUL "mass" not a "malignancy" so the fact that there is mediastinal lymphadenopathy mentioned in that scan is not used to help determine date of diagnosis.

 2001
20010162 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Should the code 001 in tumor size be used for tumors described as having "focal" involvement? See discussion.

Is tumor size coded to 001 for the following examples:

Example 1: Focal adenoca in left lobe on prostatectomy.

Example 2: Multifocal ductal carcinoma of breast on mastectomy.

Example 1 and 2: There is insufficient information in the examples to determine whether EOD-Size of Primary Tumor should be coded to 001.

The instructions are that code 001 is used for a microscopic focus or foci of tumor only. That means that the tumor is small enough that it could not be seen by the naked eye, nor would it be palpable. Be careful with the term "focal" because it is most often used to describe tumor cells grouped or concentrated in one area as in example 1. There is no implication that this focus was microscopic only. Was it mentioned in the gross or macroscopic portion of the pathology report? If so, it is not coded to 001. Was it palpable? If so, it is not coded to 001.

Example 2 cites a multifocal breast cancer. Again, did the pathologist visualize the cancer (was it reported on the gross or macroscopic portion of the pathology?) If so, do not use code 001. Was the lesion palpable? If so, do not use code 001.

 2001
20010168

Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "adenocarcinoma, undifferentiated, with sarcomatoid features"? See discussion.

Is the case more accurately coded with histology of adenosarcoma [8933/34] or adenocarcinoma, undifferentiated [8140/34]? Should "sarcomatoid" be interpreted as sarcoma?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8140/34 [adenocarcinoma, undifferentiated]. Sarcomatoid means sarcoma-like and should not be used in coding histology.

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.

 2001
20010134 Diagnostic Confirmation--Testis: How do you code this field when a testicular mass is confirmed to be cancer on physical exam and testicular antigen, but the orchiectomy specimen was negative and yet the final signout diagnosis on the medical record was "testicular cancer"? Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field to 5 [Positive laboratory test/marker study] because the disease was confirmed both clinically and by a positive marker. Code 8 [Clinical diagnosis only] is used when the diagnosis is based on information other than that coded in 5, 6, or 7 [positive lab test/marker study, visualization, and radiography or other imaging techniques]. Code 8 is rarely used. 2001
20010115 Spanish Surname or Origin: If Asians, Blacks and Whites with non-Spanish surnames are born in a Spanish country, is this field coded to Spanish or non-Spanish? See discussion. For example, how do we code Miyako Mitsubishi with race listed as Japanese who was born in Peru or Sylvia Shapiro with race listed as White who was born in Argentina? For both cases, code the Spanish Surname or Origin field to 0 [Non-Spanish/Non-Hispanic]. Persons with non-Spanish surnames would not be coded as being Spanish solely because they are born in a Spanish country. Do not code Spanish ethnicity based only on birthplace. Place of birth is a separate data item and it can be used in data analysis to identify this particular group of people. 2001
20010042 Grade, Differentiation--Bone Marrow: Can we use the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, which lists myeloma as a B cell neoplasm under non-Hodgkin lymphomas, to code Grade, Differentiation field for myeloma to B-cell (code 6)?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

No. Myeloma is a malignancy of plasma cells. Plasma cells are the daughters of B cells. So technically it would be correct to call them B cell, but that is not common usage.

Cell marker (phenotype) should be coded in the Grade, Differentiation field for only leukemias and lymphomas, as classified in the ICD-O-3. In the ICD-O-3, myeloma is listed under Plasma Cell Tumors, not Lymphomas. When a cell marker is coded for a leukemia/lymphoma it should be coded only from pathology and/or cytology reports.

For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, 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.

 2001
20010148

EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: Would a lymphoma involving mesenteric and retroperitoneal nodes (both site code C77.2) be coded to extension 10 [Involvement of a single lymph node region; Stage I], based on the fact that while more than one "chain" is involved only one "region" is involved?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 20 [Involvement of two or more lymph node regions on the same side of diaphram]. The AJCC lists mesenteric as a core nodal region, but does not list retroperitoneal lymph nodes as a part of this region, so retroperitoneal is a separate region.

The EOD staging scheme for lymphoma uses lymph node REGIONS as the criteria for assigning the extension code. Use the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual as the definitive source for classifying lymph node regions, not the ICD-O-3. If it is a separate LN region per the AJCC, it is coded in the EOD as a separate region.

According to the AJCC curator, the nodal regions are defined in Kaplan's book on Hodgkin disease. Bilateral cervical, or axillary, or hilar, or pelvic, or inguinal nodes count as two regions. Mediastinal and para-aortic lymph nodes count as one region regardless of laterality as they are centrally located. A large mediastinal mass constitutes one region involved regardless of the size.

 2001
20010155

Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Melanoma: Would a shave biopsy diagnosis of "highly suggestive of early melanoma", followed by a re-excision diagnosis of "no residual disease", be SEER reportable if the clinician referred to the case clinically as a melanoma? If so, what would the Diagnostic Confirmation be? See discussion.

Pathology report from a shave biopsy states: "...markedly atypical junctional melanocytic proliferation. Changes highly suggestive of early melanoma arising adjacent to superficial congenital nevus." The re-excision pathology report states "biopsy proven melanoma" in the "Clinical History" section of the report (which is a reference to the original shave biopsy). The re-excision final pathology diagnosis states "no evidence of melanoma." The physician states that he thinks this is a melanoma. Should it be reported? Should Diagnostic Confirmation be coded to 1 or 8?

The case is reportable because the physician documented a clinical diagnosis of malignant melanoma. Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field to 8 [Clinical diagnosis only (other than 5, 6 or 7)].

 2001