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: 02/12/2026 02:22 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20010128 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Bladder/Prostatic Urethra: When invasive TCC of the bladder and TCC in-situ of the prostatic urethra are diagnosed at the same time, are they reportable as two primaries? See discussion. There is no direct extension of tumor from the bladder to the urethra. According to the SEER rules for determining separate primaries, bladder (C67) and urethra (C68) are separate sites. However, it seems that TCC in the bladder and urethra should be reported as a single primary.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

This is one primary. Mucosal spread of in situ cancer from a hollow organ (bladder) into another hollow organ (prostatic urethra) is coded as a single primary.

This type of mucosal spread of tumor is sometimes referred to as "intramucosal extension" or " in situ component extending to." Mucosal spread can also be expressed as a statement of an invasive component in one organ with adjacent or associated in situ carcinoma in a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium.

This case represents an invasive bladder tumor with in situ extension to the prostatic urethra. A tumor that is breaking down can be invasive in the center with in situ cancer at its margins. Occasionally, the in situ margin can move into a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium.

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
20010117 Grade, Differentiation--Prostate: Has SEER officially changed the conversion code for Gleason score 7 to poorly differentiated [grade 3]?

For cases diagnosed prior to 2003, there has been no change in SEER standards for converting a Gleason score to a grade. As described in the SEER Program Code Manual, Gleason score 7 is converted to moderately differentiated [grade 2]. ONLY if the pathology report lists moderately poorly differentiated IN ADDITION to the Gleason's score 7, would you code the case as 3.

For cases diagnosed in 2003 and later, please see question number 20031123.

 2001
20010022 Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: Some pathologists use a two component grade system for bladder carcinomas - either low grade or high grade. Should we continue to code these per SEER rules as grades 2 [low grade] and 4 [high grade]? See discussion. The AFIP website states that this low grade classification corresponds to grade 1/3, while the high grade corresponds to both grade 2/3 and grade 3/3. Using the 3-grade conversion, this would also classify the low grade as grade 2, but would leave the high grade as a toss-up between grade 3 and grade 4. Continue to code Grade, Differentiation as specified in the SEER Program Code Manual: "Low grade" is coded to 2 and "high grade" is coded to 4. 2001
20010044

Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology/Date of Diagnosis: If a "suspicious" cytology is reportable only when a later positive biopsy or a physician's clinical impression of cancer supports the cytology findings, is the Date of Diagnosis field coded to the later confirmation date rather than to the date of the suspicious cytology? Is a suspicious "biopsy" handled the same way?

Cytology reported as "suspicious" is not reportable. If the physician confirms the suspicious cytology by making a clinical diagnosis of malignancy, the Date of Diagnosis field is coded to the date of the clinical diagnosis, which may or may not be same date the cytology was performed.

Without supporting clinical documentation, the case will remain non-reportable and will not be submitted to SEER. The supporting documentation can be a physician's statement that the patient has cancer, a scan or procedure that identifies cancer, or a positive biopsy.

Suspicious "biopsies" are reportable according to SEER's list of ambiguous terms. Suspicious "cytologies" without supporting clinical statements are not.

 2001
20010142 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Skin: If a patient presents with two separate lesions on the left cheek (i.e., left lateral cheek and left upper cheek) that both are histologically confirmed to be superficial spreading melanoma on the same day, is this coded as one or two primaries?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code as one primary.

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
20010156 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: Patient diagnosed with two lumps in same breast, different quadrants at same time. One was ductal carcinoma, cribriform type; the other was ductal carcinoma. How many primaries do we code? See discussion. If the breast cancer had been diagnosed in 2000 we would have coded this case as one primary, code to higher ductal ca. For a 2001 or later diagnosis, should this be coded as two primaries?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code this case as two primaries if the tumors are separate. Separate tumors have clear (negative) margins. If the tumors are not separate, code as one primary.

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
20010109 Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: If the grade given for the primary site is from a provisional diagnosis and the grade given for a metastatic site is from a final diagnosis, should we follow the SEER rule that says to code the grade as stated in the final diagnosis (e.g., Provisional diagnosis: High grade papillary serous carcinoma of ovary. Final dx: poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma in a caval lymph node)? Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 4 [High grade] from the examination of the ovary (primary site). Do not code grade from a metastatic site. 2001
20010005 Grade, Differentiation--Lymphoma/Leukemia: What code is used to represent this field for a lymph node biopsy that reveals "well differentiated lymphocytic lymphoma" and a bone marrow biopsy that reveals "chronic lymphocytic leukemia/well differentiated lymphocytic lymphoma"?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 1 [Grade 1] for both of these cases because there is no mention of T-cell, B-cell, null cell, or NK cell involvement. Both cases have a pathologic description of well differentiated, not the descriptors "high grade," "low grade," or "intermediate grade" which must be ignored when coding grade for lymphomas.

For lymphomas, you cannot code the descriptions "high grade," "low grade," and "intermediate grade" in the Grade, Differentiation field because these terms refer to categories in the Working Formulation and not to histologic grade. However, you can code terms such as "well differentiated", "moderately differentiated" and "poorly differentiated" for lymphoma histologies.

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
20010145 EOD-Extension: There is a one to many relationship between T values in TNM staging and SEER EOD-Extension values (one T value can be coded to many extension values). For most situations, we can typically code EOD-Extension to the lowest value in the range available for that T value per the SEER guidelines. But, what happens if another tumor feature, such as tumor size, was involved in the assignment of a T value? See discussion. Example: Physician stages lung tumor as T2. The lowest extension code, 20, doesn't precisely fit the guidelines for a T2 tumor because the T2 stage may be based on the size of the tumor, which doesn't have anything to do with the EOD-Extension field. Should EOD-Extension be coded to 30 rather than 20?

The criteria for AJCC stage T2 consists of both size and tumor extension values. Size of tumor is recorded in the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field. If you determine that size is the physician's sole criteria for assigning a T2 value, code an EOD-Extension value that reflects more specific information than 30 [localized, NOS]. Code to 10 or 25, depending on the case.

If the tumor size is not provided, and there is only a clinician statement that describes the lung tumor as a stage T2, code EOD-Extension to 20, the numerically lowest equivalent EOD-Extension code for the lung T2 category.

 2001