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: 09/09/2025 23:11 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021105 Grade, Differentiation: Do we code to the highest grade even when no grade is given at the time of initial diagnosis, but a grade is obtained on tissue removed after non-surgical treatment has occurred? See discussion.

1. In 2000 a pleural fluid aspirate had no grade. Pt treated with chemo. In 2000 a BSO diagnosed high grade papillary serous adenocarcinoma of the ovary.

2. In 1993 a prostate bx had no grade. Pt treated. In 2001 prostate bx revealed a Gleason's 4+3.

Code the grade at the time of initial diagnosis (if the specimen is from the primary site) or to the grade identified as part of a first course of cancer-directed surgery to the primary site. When different grades are specified for tissue pathologically reviewed from the primary site before and after treatment, code the higher grade. This is true even if the higher grade is obtained while the pt is still undergoing first course of cancer-directed therapy.

1. Code the Grade to 4 [high grade], if the grade information from the BSO specimen represents the grade associated with primary site surgical specimen. Even though the grade was obtained after first course of cancer-directed therapy started, it was obtained during first course of cancer-directed therapy.

2. Code the Grade to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable]. Grade was obtained well after the first course of cancer-directed therapy ended.

 2002
20021122 Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: For a path diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ, cribriform type with apocrine features, does the term "apocrine" modify the term cribriform or does it represent another type of ductal carcinoma in situ? See discussion. It can be difficult to determine if two terms mentioned in a pathology report are describing different aspects of the same morphology or if the two terms are describing two different morphologies.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8401/2 [Apocrine carcinoma in situ]. According to our pathologist consultant "Because apocrine is the more unusual tumor, and pulling it out of the cribriform category keeps the latter a little cleaner (because most cribriform ductal carcinoma in situ is not particularly apocrine), I am inclined to code to the histology to apocrine ductal carcinoma in situ."

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
20021205 EOD-Extension--Melanoma: Is "erosion" synonymous with "ulceration" for melanoma cases?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

No, do not interpret the term "erosion" as a synonym for "ulceration" when coding the EOD-Extension field for melanoma. According to AJCC's melanoma curator, erosion is not necessarily the same as ulceration.

 2002
20021185 Surgery of Primary Site--Major salivary gland: How do you code Surgery of Primary Site for a submandibular gland primary when the operative report refers only to an excision of the submandibular "tumor" while the pathology report states the submandibular "gland" was removed? See discussion. The gross description on the pathology report indicates that the specimen consists of a "submandibular gland." A further description on the pathology report included, "the specimen was sectioned exposing a focally cystic mass that nearly replaces the entire specimen." For cases diagnosed on 1/1/2003 or after: Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 40 [Total parotidectomy, NOS; total removal of major salivary gland, NOS], per the pathology report's gross description of the specimen unless the operative report description of procedure indicates that the removal was less than total. 2002
20021100 Primary Site: How do we code the primary site for a malignancy that occurs in parenchyma located in an ectopic site? See discussion.

1. Patient presented with a subcutaneous nodule in right axilla. Pathologic impression by initial and reviewing pathologists is that the lesion represents a breast adenocarcinoma arising in ectopic mammary parenchyma. Subsequent breast biopsies were negative.

2. Patient presented with right branchial cleft cyst. The pathologist states the cyst is a primary thyroid adenocarcinoma arising in an ectopic focus of thyroid tissue. The subsequent total thyroidectomy is negative.

Code the primary site to the location of the malignancy.

1. Code the Primary Site field to C76.1 [Axilla NOS].

2. Code the Primary Site field to C10.4 [Branchial cleft].

 2002
20021005 EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent this field for an extranodal lymphoma that has more than one tumor in the primary site OR has intraluminal extension from the primary site to an adjacent organ? See discussion.

1. Small lymphocytic lymphoma with 2 tumors in the stomach.

2. Lymphoma involving the cecum and ileum.

3. Lymphoma of the fundus of stomach with extension into the esophagus.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Using the EOD scheme for lymphoma, code the Extension field to 11 [Localized involvement of a single extralymphatic organ or site; Stage IE] for all 3 of these cases.

For the stomach lymphoma: There are 2 areas of lymphoma, but it is still confined to one site.

For the other 2 lymphomas: Intraluminal (mucosal) spread of the lymphoma never equals extension. The same phrase that was added to code 21, "Direct extension to adjacent organs or tissues", will be added to code 11 in the Collaborative Stage System. Neither "mucosal spread to a contiguous organ" or "direct extension into a nearby organ" affect staging. Both are still coded to 11 as long as there are no other sites of lymphoma involvement.

EOD code 80 is poorly written. It does not mean diffuse invovement or multiple tumors in a single organ but rather "diffuse disease in two or more organs."

 2002
20021124

Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Primary Site/EOD-Extension--Lung: Should lung cases be counted as more than one primary when nodules removed from separate lobes of the same lung have either the same histology or they are different immunophenotypes of the same main histologic classification (e.g., adenocarcinoma)? See discussion.

1. Path report: "Two nodules (RLL, RUL) of primary pulmonary demonstrate adenocarcinoma with different histologic appearances and different immunophenotypes consistent with synchronous lung adenocarcinomas." Per ICC interpretation, two lung primaries are favored.

2. Path report: "Two peripheral nodules (LLL, LUL) demonstrate similar P.D. non-small cell carcinoma with features of large cell undifferentiated carcinoma."

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

According to current SEER rules, both examples represent one primary because both tumors are in one lung and of a single histologic type. Code the Primary Site field to C34.9 [Lung, NOS] for both examples and the EOD-Extension field to 77 [Separate tumor nodules in different lobe]. This will capture the fact that there are multiple tumors within the lung for each of these examples.

Differences in immunophenotypes confirm independent de novo cancers and rule out metastasis. Immunophenotype differences do not equate to different histologies. In the first example described, there are different histologic features; however, the main classification is adenocarcinoma.

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
20020019

Reportability: Are the terms "evolving melanoma in situ" or "evolving melanoma" reportable diagnoses?

According to SEER's melanoma expert, these cases are not reportable because there is no standard definition for the term "evolving" melanoma.

 2002
20020059

Grade, Differentiation: Can a FIGO grade be coded in this field or is the FIGO grading system to be used only for EOD/Stage coding?

This answer pertains to cases prior to 2014. For cases diagnosed 2014 and forward, see http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/grade/

Do not use FIGO grade to code differentiation.

FIGO grade is something completely different from FIGO stage. FIGO stage is used to code EOD. FIGO grade is based on the percentage of non-squamous (i.e., solid) portions of the tumor and corresponds roughly to a three grade differentiation system: grade I, well differentiated (=<5% solid component); grade II, moderately differentiated (>5 - 50% solid); and grade III, poorly differentiated (> 50% solid). SEER is evaluating whether the ICD-O-3 6th digit differentiation codes (four grade categories) accurately represent the FIGO grade. For the time being, do not code FIGO grade.

For a diagnosis that includes commonly used differentiation term with a FIGO grade, such as "Moderately differentiated, FIGO grade II," disregard the FIGO grade and code the Grade, Differentiation field according to the term "Moderately differentiated."

2002
20021166 EOD-Extension--Kidney: If a "tumor thrombus" in a renal vein is discontinuous from the primary tumor in the kidney, is it still coded to 60 [Tumor thrombus in a renal vein, NOS], rather than 85 [Metastasis]?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 60 [Tumor thrombus in a renal vein, NOS]. A thrombus can be a bolus of tumor cells within a large vein that may or may not still be connected/contiguous with the primary tumor. However, both a discontinuous and contiguous thrombus are coded to 60.

 2002