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: 02/25/2026 15:29 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20091034 CS Extension--Ovary: How are the following terms coded when they are described in the medical record without any other qualifying information? Seeding, talcum powder appearance, salting, miliary, and studding.

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.Seeding, talcum powder appearance, salting and studding are synonymous with implants. When the size of implants is not stated, but operative report and scans state "seeding," "talcum powder appearance," "salting," and "studding" the CS extension code choice will depend on the location of the seeding, talcum powder appearance, salting, or studding.

The word "miliary" is not documented as a synonym for implants.

The term miliary does not affect the CS extension code choice according to the current CS instructions.

 2009
20091045 CS Tumor Size/CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: When tumor size is unknown, but it is known that both in situ and invasive components are present, how should CS Tumor Size and SSF6 be coded? See Discussion. We coded CS Tumor Size 990 and SSF 6 to 060 for a case in which no tumor size was mentioned and the breast core biopsy identified microinvasive infiltrating lobular carcinoma and lobular carcinoma insitu. The lumpectomy identified no residual tumor. SEER edit 218 states we must have CS Tumor Size as 999 if the CS SSF 6 is 060. Yet the tumor size code of 990 (Microinvasion; microscopic focus or foci only, no size given; described as less than 1 mm) would more accurately reflect this case. Even in a situation where there was microinvasion described as less than 1mm, the edit will not allow one to code CS Tumor Size to 990 with the CS SSF 6 as 060. Should these types of cases have CS Tumor Size coded 999 or should the edit be adjusted to allow for this combination?

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 CS tumor size 990 [Microinvasion; microscopic focus or foci only, no size given; described as less than 1 mm] and CS SSF6 050 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in CS Tumor Size because size of invasive component not stated AND proportions of in situ and invasive not known].

This combination of codes captures the information available for this case.

 2009
20091130

MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What is the correct histology code and MP/H rule used for 1) infiltrating ductal carcinoma, mucinous type and 2) infiltrating ductal carcinoma with features of tubular carcinoma? See Discussion.

There is confusion as to which rule applies. Should the histologies be coded to 8480/3 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] and 8211/3 [tubular adenocarcinoma] respectively per rule H12? Rule H12 states to code the most specific histologic term; "type" and "with features of" are used in the pathologic diagnosis and are both terms that can be used to code the specific histology. Or would the histology be coded 8523 for both examples per rule H17 because neither histologic codes 8480/3 or 8211/3 are included as examples of duct carcinomas, nor are they included in Table 2?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code 8523 [infiltrating duct mixed with other types of carcinoma] for

1. Infiltrating ductal carcinoma, mucinous type and

2. Infiltrating ductal carcinoma with features of tubular carcinoma

The infiltrating ductal types in Rule H12 are listed (8022, 8035, 8501-8508) and do not include mucinous or tubular. We cannot use this rule. The first rule that applies to these single tumors is H17, code to 8523. If you look up 8523 in the numerical morphology section of ICD-O-3, you will see similar examples included in the definition of this code.

2009
20091028

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries/Cancer-directed treatment--Lung: Is a 2008 occurrence of non-small cell carcinoma in the left lower lobe following a 1998 occurrence of the same histology in the left lung to be counted as a new primary if the 1998 primary was treated with chemotherapy and/or radiation but not surgery? See Discussion.

1998 diagnosis on non-small cell carcinoma treated with radiation and chemotherapy. In 2008, there is an abnormality in the LLL with brushings/washings positive for non-small cell carcinoma.

According to the MP/H rules, M8 states this would be a new primary. However, in the document titled " Quality Improvement Meeting August 2008," found on the SEER website, it stated that because the patient never had surgery for the initial primary there is no evidence that the patient was ever disease free. Therefore, the occurrence of the latter tumor would not be a new primary (p. 7, "colon"). Does this answer pertain only to surgery or does it apply to any type of treatment?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the 2007 MP/H rules apply if the 2008 diagnosis is a new tumor. Was there any statement that the patient was free of disease (NED) after the chemo and radiation therapy? (A patient can be disease free without surgery). If there is no statement to the contrary, no mention of metastasis from the 1998 diagnosis, and no mention of disease between 1998 and 2008, follow lung rule M8 and abstract the 2008 diagnosis as a new primary.

This lung case differs from the colon case discussed in the document titled "Quality Improvement Meeting August 2008." For the colon case, there was disease in 2003, 2005 and 2007. Based on the information provided, the 2007 diagnosis was not a new tumor because the patient was never free of disease. Therefore, the 2007 diagnosis is not a new primary. The number of reportable primaries was based on disease status over time, and was not based on the type of treatment given for the initial tumor (i.e., surgery or any other treatment modality).

 2009
20091127

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are to be accessioned for a patient with Neurofibromatosis 2 (NF2) who presents with meningiomas on the left and right side of the brain and multiple meningiomas of the spinal cord? See Discussion.

We have a patient with NF2 who also has meningiomas diagnosed on the left and right side of the brain as well as multiple meningiomas of the spinal cord. Are the meningiomas all one primary (separate from the NF2): C70.9 and 9530/1?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is four primaries.

Report NF2 because it occurs with reportable neoplasms. Note: Report NF only once per patient.

Per MP/H Benign CNS Rule M4, the meningiomas of the meninges/brain (C70.0) and meninges/CNS (C70.1) are multiple primaries. Code the meningiomas of the spine to the histology to 9530/1 [Multiple meningiomas] (Rule H6) because there are multiple tumors in the spine.

Per Rule M5, the meningiomas of the right and left side of the brain are multiple primaries. Code of each to the histology 9530/0 [Meningioma, NOS] per Rule H2 because they are separate primaries (assuming there is one tumor on each side of the brain).

 2009
20091085 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded for a breast primary with a final diagnosis of "infiltrating duct carcinoma with apocrine features"? See Discussion. I & R has conflicting answers: #25719 (dated 3/17/2008) says per rule H12 this is 8401/3 but #23347 (dated 8/12/07) says per rule H16, this is 8523/3.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign histology code 8401/3 [apocrine adenocarcinoma] according to rule H12. Apocrine is a type of duct carcinoma, see table 1. Code 8401 should be listed in Rule H12. Apocrine should be removed from table 3.

These corrections will appear in the revised version of the rules.

 2009
20091059 CS Tumor Size--Breast: How is this field coded for DCIS that is present in scattered small foci over five of eight slides, and the greatest aggregate dimension measures 0.5 cm? See Discussion. Breast biopsy was prompted by abnormality seen on mammography. Would this be an example of when to code 996 (mammographic/xerographic diagnosis only, no size given; clinically not palpable) applies for the CS Tumor Size field?

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.Assign code 005 [0.5 cm] in this case. According to the General Instructions for CS tumor size, it is acceptable to code an aggregate size stated by the pathologist (see instruction 4.i).

 2009
20091112 Grade-Breast: How is this field coded for a breast tumor described as "intermediate nuclear grade"? See Discussion.

Guidelines for selecting grade for breast primaries prioritize nuclear grade right after B&R grade. The conversion table displays only numeric values for nuclear grade. How is grade coded for tumors in which nuclear grade is described by terminology? Does it make a difference if the tumor is invasive or in situ?

Example 1: Ductal carcinoma, intermediate nuclear grade.

Example 2: Ductal carcinoma, high nuclear grade.

Example 3: Ductal carcinoma, moderate nuclear grade.

Example 4: DCIS, intermediate nuclear grade.

Use the table on page C-607 of the 2007 SEER manual. The terms "low," "intermediate," and "high" appear in the column labeled "BR Grade." Use this column to determine the appropriate grade code when grade is described using these terms. If the grade of an in situ tumor is described using these terms, use the table to determine the appropriate code for the grade field. 2009
20091058 MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney: How is histology coded when it is described in the pathology report as "Histologic type: Clear cell (conventional) renal cell carcinoma. Percent of sarcomatoid component: 10%"? See Discussion. MP/H rules for kidney, Table 1 lists both clear cell and sarcomatoid as specific types of renal cell carcinoma. The MP/H terms and definitions for kidney state that clear cell is architecturally diverse. For this case, does the sarcomatoid component represent a subtype of clear cell that has not been assigned an ICD-O code, and thus histology should be coded to 8310? Or does the sarcomatoid component represent a specific type of renal cell carcinoma for which rule H6 would apply? Should histology be coded 8255 for this case? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8310 [clear cell adenocarcinoma] according to rule H5. Renal cell, clear cell and sarcomatoid are mentioned in the diagnosis. Sarcomatoid is referred to as a component. Component is not one of the terms listed in rule H5 that indicate a more specific type. Ignore sarcomatoid in this case. Use table 1 to identify clear cell as a specific renal cell type. Code the specific type (clear cell) according to rule H5. 2009
20091131 Multiplicity Counter/Type of Multiple Tumors--Breast: How are these fields coded when a patient underwent a lumpectomy demonstrating two measured foci of invasive ductal carcinoma (1.5 cm and 3 mm) and "focally seen" in situ ductal carcinoma (DCIS) followed by a re-excision that is positive for 1.5 mm focus of residual invasive carcinoma? See Discussion.

Lumpectomy path shows two foci of invasive ductal carcinoma, 1.5 cm & 3 mm sizes, and CAP summary lists "DCIS: focally seen", no further description. The re-excision pathology specimen finds a 1.5 mm focus of residual invasive carcinoma, very close to the new inferior margin (so registrar assumed this was probably not part of the previously excised mass), and no mention of any more in situ.

Can we assume the DCIS was associated with/part of the invasive tumors because it was not measured or described separately? If we say there are 3 tumors (for the measured invasive foci), should Type of Multiple Tumors be coded 30 [In situ and invasive] or 40 [Multiple invasive]?

Code 03 [3 tumors] in the multiplicity counter. Do not count the "focally seen" DCIS because it was not measured.

Code 30 [In situ and invasive] in Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary. The single primary reported for this case is a combination of in situ and invasive tumors.

2009