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: 02/21/2026 02:29 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021016 Histology (Pre-2007)/Behavior Code: What code is used to represent the histology "foci of well differentiated intramucosal carcinoma [carcinoma in situ] arising on the surface of a tubular adenoma"? The pathologist referred to this colon biopsy as "in situ".

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Assign histology code 8210 [adenocarcinoma in a tubular adenoma] and behavior code 2 [in situ]. "In situ" is specified by the pathologist.

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.

 2002
20020031 Multiple Primaries--Hematopoietic, NOS: When the SEER Single versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table indicates that a disease is not a new primary, but a pathologist or clinician states that it is a new primary, do we use the physician information or the table?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:If the physician clearly states that this is a new primary, submit it as a new primary. Otherwise, use the Single versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table.

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.

 2002
20021174 Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: When the original pathology reports diagnosis indicates a grade and the review of slides (ROS) pathology report does not give a grade, can you code the histologic type from the ROS and the grade from the original pathology report? See discussion. For example, if the original diagnosis is "poorly differentiated carcinoma" and the ROS diagnosis is "squamous cell carcinoma," would the morphology code be 8070/33?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Yes. Code the Histology and Grade, Differentiation fields to 8070/33 [poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma]. Code the higher grade when different grades are specified for the same specimen and code the more specific morphology (i.e., squamous cell carcinoma rather than carcinoma, NOS).

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.

 2002
20020060 Terminology/EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Lung: Can the term "opacity" be used to code the size of the primary lung tumor when it is given a size in an imaging study but the "opacity" is not referred to as being suspicious for cancer? See discussion. Example: How do you code tumor size for a lung primary in which the patient had a CT of the chest that describes a "4 cm opacity in the RUL of the lung." A biopsy of the RUL lung is positive for carcinoma? Would your answer be different if the opacity was described as being "suspicious for carcinoma"?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 999 [Not stated] for the example given above. However, if the opacity was described as a "mass" or as "suspicious for cancer," the size could be coded to 040 [4 cm].

 2002
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.

 2002
20021187

Reportability: When a hospital pathologist sends the slides from an original biopsy to two or more outside reviewers and the reviewers differ on whether or not the case is reportable, is the case SEER reportable? Does the decision to treat the patient have any bearing on whether the case would be reportable?

Typically, the final diagnosis of the reviewing pathologist is the one used to determine whether the case is SEER reportable. If two or more reviewing pathologists disagree as to whether the case should be reportable, determine reportability based on the following priority order:

1) If the patient is treated for cancer, the case is reportable.

2) If the patient is not treated for cancer, use the amended diagnosis on the original pathology report if the hospital pathologist used the reviewing pathologists' opinions in establishing his new diagnosis.

3) If there is not an amended diagnosis for the original hospital pathology report, use the clinician's opinion regarding what the diagnosis is to determine whether the case is reportable.

 2002
20021072 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: The path report provides a size for both the Paget disease and the underlying intraductal component in the breast. Should we assume the Paget disease to be invasive and code the size of the primary tumor to that invasive component? See discussion. For example, path diagnosis for resection gave the size of the Paget disease as 1 mm and the size of the underlying intraductal tumor as 4 cm. Should size for this breast case be coded to 040 or 003, less than 3 mm.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 040 [4 cm], the size of the larger underlying intraductal tumor. Paget disease is classified according to the size of the underlying in situ or invasive tumor. Paget with an underlying in situ tumor is staged as in situ to match the AJCC classification of this disease process.

 2002
20020016 Primary Site (Pre-2007)--Prostate/Prostatic Urethra: What code is used to represent primary site for an "adenocarcinoma with spindle cell differentiation" of the prostatic urethra?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Primary Site field to C61.9 [prostate] because the histology is adenocarcinoma.

When a malignancy is identified in the prostatic urethra, look at the histology to determine the primary site. If it is a transitional cell carcinoma, code the Primary Site field to C68.0 [urethra] and if it is an adenocarcinoma, code to C61.9 [prostate].

The EOD scheme is ultimately collapsed into the TNM scheme. The TNM system differentiates between adenocarcinoma of the prostate and transitional cell carcinoma of the urethra. Only adenocarcinoma of the prostate is staged by the prostate scheme. Transitional cell carcinoma of the prostatic urethra is coded to C68.0 [urethra] and staged with that scheme.

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.

 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."

 2002
20021150 SEER Guidelines Over Time: Should we apply the current guidelines to previously missed older cases now being reported to the central registry? See discussion.

1. We receive "straggler" cases for coding that were diagnosed when previous coding schemes and guidelines were applicable. When a specific guideline is in place for a given time period and is later changed in some way, we try to use the specific guideline that was in place at the time of diagnosis when coding the incoming case. However, it is not always possible to remember or to be able to access those old guidelines.

2. There are situations when coding old cases that have no applicable guideline for the older diagnosis years but current SEER documentation informs the coder how to handle the situation. For example, in the SEER Program Code Manual (3rd ed), 3 new guidelines were added for coding of differentiation. There were no guidelines in the previous SEER manual that specifically covered those situations. Should we use the current rules in coding differentiation on the older incoming case?

 Code all fields according to the instructions that were in effect at the time the case was diagnosed. If the old guidelines are unavailable or non-existent, code the case in the current scheme. The year the case was abstracted will indicate that the case was a late entry into the system and that could account for the differences in coding seen by a reviewer. 2002