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: 02/18/2026 07:23 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021054 Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology "invasive ductal carcinoma, mucinous type and invasive lobular carcinoma"?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8522/3 [infiltrating duct and lobular carcinoma] per rule 1 of the Coding Complex Morphologic Diagnoses, because the tumor is both lobular and ductal.

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
20021132

EOD-Extension: The medical record lacks a clear statement that metastatic workup was complete. A metastatic deposit is identified within 4 months of diagnosis and while the patient is undergoing first course of treatment. How do you code the EOD-Extension field?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

In coding the EOD-Extension field, ignore metastasis that is discovered after the initial workup is completed regardless of the timeframe from diagnosis date until the date the metastatic deposit was discovered. The metastasis is progression of disease.

Any of the following represents progression of disease. Do not code the subsequently identified metastatic involvement in the EOD:

1) The metastatic workup was complete and treatment started before the procedure was done that found the metastatic involvement.

2) A procedure, such as a scan, was negative initially and a repeat of that procedure is now positive.

3) The treatment plan is developed for a localized disease process.

If you are unable to determine whether the newly discovered metastasis represents progression or is part of the initial workup, regard the metastasis as progression. Do not code the metastasis in the EOD-Extension field.

 2002
20021150 SEER Guidelines Over Time: Should we apply the current guidelines to previously missed older cases now being reported to the central registry? See discussion.

1. We receive "straggler" cases for coding that were diagnosed when previous coding schemes and guidelines were applicable. When a specific guideline is in place for a given time period and is later changed in some way, we try to use the specific guideline that was in place at the time of diagnosis when coding the incoming case. However, it is not always possible to remember or to be able to access those old guidelines.

2. There are situations when coding old cases that have no applicable guideline for the older diagnosis years but current SEER documentation informs the coder how to handle the situation. For example, in the SEER Program Code Manual (3rd ed), 3 new guidelines were added for coding of differentiation. There were no guidelines in the previous SEER manual that specifically covered those situations. Should we use the current rules in coding differentiation on the older incoming case?

 Code all fields according to the instructions that were in effect at the time the case was diagnosed. If the old guidelines are unavailable or non-existent, code the case in the current scheme. The year the case was abstracted will indicate that the case was a late entry into the system and that could account for the differences in coding seen by a reviewer. 2002
20021010

Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology adenocarcinoma with "areas of" papillary architecture and "foci of" squamous differentiation? Even though "areas of" and "foci" are non-majority terms, should histology be coded to the combination code of adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes [8255/3]?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to the majority of the tumor, which is 8140/3 [adenocarcinoma, NOS]. The terms "areas of" and "foci of" should be ignored because they are not terms that reflect the majority of the tumor. Therefore, we cannot use rule A on page 2 of Coding Complex Morphologic Diagnoses because this diagnosis does not represent a complex morphology.

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
20021030 Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: Why was the decision made not to code all "3-component differentiation systems" the same way that Bloom-Richardson is coded? For example, SEER codes a low grade BR to 1 for the Differentiation field and a low grade for other grading systems to 2. See discussion. Our Pathologist Consultant agrees with SEER's guideline to code the Bloom-Richardson and B&R modifications of low, intermediate and high to 1, 2 and 3 respectively and thinks all 3-component systems should be coded that same way because it better represents the differentiation of the tumor. In his opinion, coding all other 3-component systems to a differentiation of 2, 3 and 4 respectively, is overstating the degree of differentiation. The rules for coding histology are approved and used by all of the major standard setters through agreements reached in the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee. This issue is under review by our medical advisors and a special committee. Changes will be taken to the Uniform Data Standards Committee for review and approval. 2002
20021121 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Kidney: How many primaries are reportable in a patient treated with a bilateral nephrectomy that revealed multiple tumors within each kidney and the histology in both the left and the right kidney was "renal cell carcinoma, indeterminate type: multiple histologically identical tumors" and the clinical discharge diagnosis was "bilateral renal cell carcinoma, probably surgically cured"? See discussion. The SEER manual states "If only one histologic type is reported and if both sides of a paired site are involved within two months of diagnosis, a determination must be made as to whether the patient has one or two independent primaries." Frequently, the only statement we have is that "bilateral organs are involved." Additional guidelines for determining number of primaries would be helpful.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Report this case as two primaries, left and right kidneys. According to our pathologist consultant, "The description sounds like bilateral multiple primaries. Multicentricity in the same kidney occurs in about 4% of all cases, and bilaterality in 0.5 to 3% (Atlas of Tumor Pathology, Tumors of the Kidney, Bladder, and Related Urinary Structures)."

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
20021165 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--All Sites: Is there a hierarchy for using information from clinical tests (scans, radiography) to determine clinical tumor size? When the size on a radiographic report prior to pathologic diagnosis is smaller than the size of the tumor on the radiographic report that is post pathologic diagnosis, which tumor size should be used? See discussion.

Which size should be used for these examples?

1) Tumor size on a mammogram is smaller than the tumor size on an ultrasound.

2) CT of the lung reveals a 2.5 cm RUL malignancy in June. A biopsy in July confirms a malignancy. A CT is done in August prior to initiating RT which reveals a 3.1 cm RUL nodule.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Generally, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to the largest size identified in any scan. Use the largest tumor size for most cases. There is no hierarchy for multiple imaging studies, with the exception of the two situations represented in the question examples.

1). Code the size stated on the mammogram, even if that size is smaller than the one specified on the ultrasound. Generally the mammogram size is more accurate for breast cases than ultrasound.

2). Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 2.5 cm. In this example, the second scan was the same type as the first. Usually there is not that much of a difference in size between the same tests, unless the tumor has an aggressive histology. The example does not mention the histology. With certain histologies, such as small cell of the lung, a rapid growth in a short amount of time is the normal process. The fact that the size increased that much in a short period of time, using the same type of scan, is an indication of a rapidly growing tumor. It would be better to use the size on the initial scan to code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor.

 2002
20021126 EOD-Extension--Head & Neck (Tonsil): How should the EOD-Extension field be coded for bilateral tonsil involvement? See discussion.

Tonsillectomy and bilateral radical neck dissections were done. The path diagnosis was left and right tonsils: squamous cell carcinoma, bilateral tonsils with negative inked surgical margins of resection. Physical exam and operative findings did not mention any extension beyond the tonsils.

We originally coded the EOD-Extension field to 30 for a bilateral tonsil primary. The case failed the SEER Edit IF41 (Primary Site/Lat/EOD). According to that edit, if laterality is 4 then the EOD-Extension field must not be 00 through 30.

We recoded the EOD-Extension field to 99 in order to comply with the SEER edit.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code EOD extension as 30 [Localized, NOS] and laterality as 4 [Bilateral involvement]. The next update to the SEER edits will allow this combination.

 2002
20021013 Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used for histology "tubular carcinoma with lobular carcinoma in situ"?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Assign code 8211/3 [Tubular carcinoma]. According to histology rule #2 for a single tumor on page 86 of the 2004 SEER manual, code the invasive histology when both invasive and in situ tumor are present.

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
20021101 Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: How do we code these fields for a tumor that is predominantly a "well differentiated liposarcoma" [8851/31] that has a less predominent type of "dedifferentiated liposarcoma" [8858/33]? If we code the predominant cell type [8851/3] and the worst grade [3], the case will not pass edits because well-differentiated liposarcoma requires a differentiation code of 1. See discussion. Example: Dedifferentiated liposarcoma, with the following features: size 22 cm, FNCLCC grade 3 of 3 [high grade]. Path comment: The tumor consists of predominantly well-differentiated sclerosing subtype liposarcoma and areas of high grade spindle cell (non-lipogenic) sarcoma. The area of high grade spindle cell sarcoma measured up to 7.5 cm.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8858/33 [Dedifferentiated liposarcoma, grade 3]. The pathologist gives a final designation of Dedifferentiated liposarcoma and then provides further details in the comment that do not negate the final designation.

Grade is usually coded independent of the cell type. There are a few Catch-22 situations, like this one, in which the grade is built into the name of the cell type.

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