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: 02/19/2026 19:27 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20031049 Histology (Pre-2007)--Stomach: What code is used to represent the histology of "mucin-secreting adenocarcinoma, intestinal type "for a stomach primary?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

For this specific example, code histology to 8481 [Mucin-producing adenocarcinoma] as it is a more specific cell type with inherent prognostic information.

Code 8255/3 [Adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes] is not appropriate for this case because "intestinal type" is a more specific description of this cancer and not another type of cancer. There are two broad categories of gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas: Intestinal and Diffuse.

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.

 2003
20031205 EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined: How are these fields coded when an autopsy report reveals pathologically involved regional lymph nodes but does not state how many nodes were positive nor how many were examined? See Description. A final autopsy report described widely disseminated adenocarcinoma, probably lung primary. Metastatic tumor in brain, lungs, and in lymph nodes. The Gross description of the autopsy report stated that there were numerous metastases to hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes. The Micro description of the autopsy report did not add any clarification. In the absence of a stated number of lymph nodes, the options for coding number of regional lymph nodes examined are codes 96-98. These codes include descriptions of surgical procedures such as sampling and dissection. How do we code number of regional lymph nodes examined when the pathological examination of lymph nodes was done only at autopsy and not during a surgical procedure?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The rules that apply to the use of pathology reports for EOD coding also apply to autopsy reports.

When a cancer diagnosis is made and positive lymph nodes are discovered on autopsy, in the absence of a stated number of lymph nodes, code the number of lymph nodes positive to 97 [Positive nodes but number of positive nodes not specified]. Code the number of lymph nodes examined to 97 [Regional lymph node removal documented as dissection and number of lymph nodes unknown/not stated]. An autopsy is a dissection.

 2003
20031043 EOD-Extension--Corpus Uteri: How is this field coded for a stage III A endometrial primary with positive pelvic washings, involvement of the omental serosa, and negative lymph nodes? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD-extension as 85 [Metastasis]. According to our TNM consultant, Omental metastasis is M1, Stage IVB [EOD 85]. 2003
20031001 EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Cervix: How do you code these fields when the cancer extended to the pelvic wall and there are periaortic LN metastases?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Assign extension code 65 for contiguous (direct) extension of tumor from the cervix to the pelvic wall. Assign extension code 85 only if the pelvic wall is involved with discontinuous extension from the cervix; i.e., the cervical tumor spread indirectly (through lymph or vascular channels) to the pelvic wall. Code the pelvic wall involvement in the Extension field and the periaortic lymph node involvement in the Lymph Node field. When the computer does the algorithm, it will look at the periaortic lymph nodes and report the summary stage as distant and the TNM stage group as IV because periarotic nodes are M1. Do not code the periaortic lymph nodes in both fields. This is stage IV, distant disease, due to the periaortic lymph node involvement (EOD lymph nodes code 6).

 2003
20031057 Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: How is this field coded for a five grade system? See Description. Example: Invasive, high grade transitional cell carcinoma (Grade 4-5/5) For this example, code grade as 4 based on the term "High grade." If "high grade" was not stated, the grade would be coded as 9, not determined. There is no SEER translation between the ICD-O grades and a five grade system for bladder. None of the pathololgist experts we querried knew of a five grade system for bladder. 2003
20031150 Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: Should the histology "non-invasive papillary carcinoma" along with the comment "solid intraductal papillary proliferation includes cytologically atypical cells with scattered mitotic figures" be coded to 8503/2 [intraductal papillary carcinoma] or 8050/2 [papillary carcinoma in situ]?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

The best histology code for this breast case is 8503/2 [Noninfiltrating intraductal papillary carcinoma]. According to the WHO Classification of Tumors for Breast, Papillary carcinoma, non-invasive is a synonym for Intraductal papillary carcinoma. Further, code a more specific histologic type when found in the microscopic description, according to the SEER Program Code manual.

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.

 2003
20031198 Surgery of Primary Site/Date Therapy Initiated--Head & Neck: Would a biopsy, NOS, that removed the majority of the tumor be used to code these fields? See Description. Patient underwent biopsy, NOS, of a carcinoma of the tongue. Subsequent glossectomy revealed microscopic focus of residual squamous cell carcinoma. If the biopsy NOS removed all macroscopic disease, code the date of the biopsy NOS as the date therapy initiated. If macroscopic disease remained following the biopsy NOS, code the glossectomy date as the date therapy initiated. 2003
20031141 Priorities/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Breast: Which part of the pathology report takes precedence when there is a discrepancy between the final path diagnosis and the CAP summary? See Description. For example, breast primary: Final path states "14/18 nodes (+) for tumor & separate matted aggregate of axillary nodes (+) for tumor. Subpectoral lymph node (+) for mets ca. Path Gross states "18 separate lymph nodes identified...many (+) for tumor grossly. Aggregate of matted lymph nodes within axillary tissue (+) for tumor. Multiple separate lymph nodes submitted." CAP Micro Summary lists "20/16 nodes examined/positive." What is correct number of nodes positive & nodes examined in this case? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The final pathology diagnosis has highest priority. The CAP summary is second priority. However, you always use the best information available. If the final path diagnosis is vague or unclear, information from the CAP summary can be used. In the case example, the total lymph node count from the final path diagnosis is unclear and the CAP summary provides clarification. Code the number of lymph nodes positive as 16 and the number examined 20. Subpectoral lymph nodes are regional nodes for breast primaries. 2003
20031154 Date of Diagnosis/Histology (Pre-2007)/Behavior--Melanoma: How are these fields coded when the first shave biopsy finds "what appears to be the top of a melanoma" and a subsequent shave biopsy finds "features consistent with lentigo maligna?"

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Evaluate each case using all available information, including all pathology reports. Use the date of the first biopsy because it did identify the melanoma. The second biopsy confirmed the histologic type.

According to WHO's Histological Typing of Skin Tumors, lentigo maligna melanoma is similar to lentigo maligna, but has dermal invasion by atypical melanocytes.

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.

 2003
20031117

Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Are simultaneous tumors of the rectosigmoid junction and rectum counted as two primaries? See Description.

On the same day in 1998, a patient was found to have a T3 adenocarcinoma of the rectosigmoid junction and an in situ adenocarcinoma in a villotubular adenoma in the lower rectum. These would be the same histology if they are in the same site.

Are C199 and C209 the same site? They are listed in ICD-O-2 (pg. xxxvii) and in ICD-O-3 (pg. 36), but they are not listed in the SEER Program Manual on page 9 as the same site. Is this one primary or two?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Abstract two primaries for the example above, according to the main rule on page 7 in the SPCM. Rectosigmoid junction (C19) and rectum (C20) are in different 3-digit ICD-O-3 topography code categories. Rectosigmoid junction and rectum are not included in the exceptions to the main rule and, therefore, do not appear on page 9 of the SPCM.

The table on page 9 is not identical to the table in ICD-O-3. Two site combinations are listed in ICD-O-3, but not in the SEER table: C19 (rectosigmoid junction) and C20 (rectum); C40 (bones of limbs) and C41 (other bones). Abstract multiple tumors in the rectosigmoid junction and rectum as separate primaries. Abstract multiple tumors in the bones of the limbs and other bones as separate primaries.

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.

 2003