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 05:15 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021039 Grade, Differentiation--Breast: How do we code grade for a breast primary diagnosis of "Low grade invasive duct, modified Bloom-Richardson grade II/III (tubule formation 2, nuclear grade 1, mitotic rate 1)"? This appears to add up to a Bloom-Richardson score of 4, which does not fit with a Bloom-Richardson II/III.

Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 1 [grade I] using the information from the BR score.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Grade or differentiation information from breast pathology reports is used in the following priority order:

1. Terminology (well, moderately, poorly)

2. Histologic grade (grade I, grade II)

3. BR scores

4. BR grade

5. Nuclear grade

On the hierarchical list for coding breast grade, the first two priorities do not apply to this case, but the third (Bloom-Richardson scores) does. Add the BR information (2+1+1) for a total score of 4, which translates to BR low grade (code 1). The statement of "II/III" may be a typo that should state I/III.

 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
20021151

Reportability: A "gastrointestinal stromal tumor" (GIST) is not always stated to be "malignant" in the path report even though the tumor appears to meet criteria for malignancy. Is the tumor SEER reportable? See discussion.

Evaluation of Malignancy and Prognosis of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Review. Miettinen, M. et al, Human Pathology 2002 May; 33(5) 478-83). This article states there is an increasing number of GISTs because the majority of tumors previously diagnosed as gastrointestinal smooth muscle tumors (leiomyomas, leiomyoblastomas and leiomyosarcomas) are now classified as GISTs. It states that gastrointestinal autonomic nerve tumors (GANTs) are also GISTs based on their KIT positivity and presence of KIT-activating mutations. This article also states that a GIST is probably malignant if it meets the following criteria: 1) Intestinal tumors: Maximum diameter >5 cm or more than 5 mitoses per 50 HPFs. 2) Gastric tumors: Maximum diameter >10 cm or more than 5 mitoses per 50 HPFs.

Some of the path reports that meet these criteria use the word "malignant", and others do not. Some of the cases that are not called "malignant" in the path diagnosis are signed out clinically as "malignant."

The case is reportable if a pathologist or clinician confirms a diagnosis of cancer. If there is no such confirmation, the case is not SEER reportable.

 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
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
20020024 Reportability--Cervix: The SEER Program Code Manual lists CIN III and carcinoma in situ of the cervix as not being reportable for cases diagnosed in 1996 or later, but does not list "adenocarcinoma in situ" or "squamous cell carcinoma in situ." Are these histologies still reportable?

For primary site cervix uteri, only histologies with behavior codes of 3 [invasive] are reportable to SEER for all registries.

Some SEER registries have opted to continue to collect behavior codes of 2 [in situ] for cervix uteri primaries.

 2002
20020002 Date Therapy Initiated: What date should be entered in Date Therapy Initiated when treatment follows a surgical procedure that is not coded under Surgery of Primary Site? See discussion. If a patient has a surgical procedure that is not coded in the Surgery of Primary Site field and then the patient undergoes additional first course of treatment, such as radiation therapy, how should the Date Therapy Initiated field be coded? In this example, code the Date Therapy Initiated field to the date of the first surgical procedure. If a SEER edit is triggered, please notify us. 2002
20021044 Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation: Can histology and/or grade be coded from a metastatic site? See discussion.

Example 1: No pathology specimen is available from the primary site for a lung primary. Rib biopsy demonstrated "anaplastic adenocarcinoma."

Example 2: Lung tissue biopsy revealed "poorly differentiated non-small cell carcinoma" for a lung primary. Pleural effusion cytology was consistent with "adenocarcinoma".

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Example 1: Code the Histology and Grade, Differentiation fields to 8140/39 [adenocarcinoma, NOS, grade not stated]. Because there was no microscopic examination of tissue from the primary site, the histology may be coded from the microscopic examination of the tissue from a metastatic site. Do not code grade from a metastatic site regardless of whether the involvement of the metastatic site is by direct extension or by discontinuous metastases.

Example 2: Code the Histology and Grade, Differentiation fields to 8046/33 [non-small cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated]. Because there is a microscopic examination of tissue from the primary site, that information should be used to code histology rather than a cytology of a metastatic site.

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
20021004 Histology: What code is used to represent the histology for the abbreviation "ca"? See discussion.

The abbreviation "ca" results in inconsistency when coding histology by a group of coders. Many abbreviation guides list both cancer (8000/3) and carcinoma (8010/3) as definitions for "ca." Page 261 of the SEER Self Instructional Manual, Book 5 lists carcinoma as the definition for "ca."

Example: What histology is used for a case with a clinical diagnosis of "recently diagnosed uterine ca" with metastasis to the pelvic lymph nodes?

For uterine primaries, code the abbreviation "ca" to 8010/3 [carcinoma, NOS].

When coding death certificate only (DCO) cases, if the site is coded to an unknown primary and no specific histology information is available other than the abbreviation "ca," interpret ca as cancer (8000/3) per NAACCR Procedure Guidelines for Registries, Series V; Resolving Death Clearance Issues, page V-15.

 2002
20021199

Primary Site/Surgery of Primary Site--Lymphoma: What codes are used in these fields when both regional lymph nodes and an extra-nodal site are involved with lymphoma and there is not a clear statement from the clinician as to the primary site? See discussion.

In our registry, we code the primary site for such cases to the extra-lymphatic site if there is one extra-nodal site involved with disease and the patient does not have disseminated involvement of multiple extra-nodal sites. Is this correct? Example: A patient with a submandibular lymphoma and involved nodes undergoes a salivary gland excision and a modified radical neck dissection yielding 100 nodes.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Primary Site to C08.0 [submandibular gland] and use the surgery code schemes that apply to that site (Parotid and Other Unspecified Glands). Physiologically, lymphoma cells in regional lymph nodes do not "back-flow" into the extralymphatic organ to involve it secondarily. As a result, the primary site is usually the extralymphatic organ with regional lymph node involvement. Do not be afraid to code an extralymphatic site as primary when that site and its regional nodes are involved.

If the lymph nodes are not regional to the extra-nodal involved site and the primary site cannot be determined, code the primary site to C77.9 [Lymph node, NOS].

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.

 2002