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: 02/10/2026 00:58 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20010135 Histology--CLL/SLL: If a tissue diagnosis of "small lymphocytic lymphoma" is made six months after an initial blood diagnosis of "chronic lymphocytic leukemia" should the histology be updated from 9823/3 to 9670/3?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Do not change the histology to small lymphocytic lymphoma (9670/3). The chronic lymphocytic leukemia has advanced/progressed and disseminated into other tissues from the blood during the last six months. If the patient presents with disease in the blood and/or bone marrow only, code to CLL. If a lymph node or other solid tissue is involved initially, code to SLL. For the case cited, the tissue involvement occurred six months after the initial diagnosis and the histology code is not changed to reflect the progression of disease.

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
20010099 EOD-Extension--Pancreas: How do you code extension when CT scan shows a mass in the head of the pancreas "encompassing" the hepatic branch of the celiac artery? See discussion. We do not code the term "encompasses" as involvement. However, should we code this case as extension to the peripancreatic tissue, NOS or as unknown?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [Extension to peripancreatic tissue, NOS]. There has to be extension to peripancreatic tissue if the mass encompasses the celiac artery.

 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
20010094

Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Breast: Should the American College of Radiology (ACR) BI-RADS assessment categories 4 [Suspicious Abnormality--biopsy should be considered] and 5 [Highly Suggestive of malignancy-appropriate action should be taken], impressions for mammograms and sonograms, be used as the sole basis for reportability? See discussion.

ACR website:

Category 4: Lesions that do not have the characteristic morphologies of breast cancer but have a definite probability of being malignant.

Category 5: lesions have a high probability of being cancer.

Updated Answer

Please refer to Appendix E of the SEER Program Coding Manual for the most up-to-date information, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2018/SPCSM_2018_AppendixE.pdf

 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
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
20010065 Histology (Pre-2007): What codes are used to represent the histology "mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in a villous adenoma" and "mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in a villous glandular polyp"? See discussion. Should histology be coded to 8480/3 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] or 8261/3[adenocarcinoma arising a villous adenoma] or 8263/3 [adenocarcinoma in a villoglandular adenoma]?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8480/3 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] using rule D in the Coding Complex Morphology Diagnoses: "Code the morphology with the highest code."

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
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
20010049 Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery: Should this field be coded to "unknown or not applicable" for all hematopoietic morphologies, brain primaries and unknown primaries? For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field to 9 [Unknown or not applicable] for all hematopoietic morphologies, brain primaries and unknown primaries. . 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