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 00:45 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
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
20021051 EOD-Extension--Pancreas: Can you explain the difference between code 10 [confined to pancreas] and code 30 [Localized, NOS]. See discussion. For example, a CT scan mentions no extension beyond the head, body or tail of the pancreas and there is no surgical resection. Should we code extension to 10 or 30?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 10 [confined to pancreas] because a scan supported the finding of no extension beyond the pancreas.

If the abstractor reviewing the medical record has scans, op reports, and/or pathology reports stating that the tumor is confined to the pancreas, code extension to 10 [confined to pancreas].

However, if the medical record only provides a patient history from a physician stating that the patient had localized pancreas, code extension to 30 [localized, NOS]. The NOS codes are used only when there is not enough information to code the specific codes (in this case, 10 or 20).

 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
20021094 EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Testis: If the patient received chemo, should "bulky retroperitoneal adenopathy" be coded as involved lymph nodes in the EOD lymph node involvement field for a testicular primary treated with an orchiectomy that rendered a path diagnosis of "seminoma confined to the testicle"? See discussion. Per an orchiectomy path diagnosis a seminoma was confined to the testicle. The only other workup, other than a scrotal ultrasound, was a staging CT scan that revealed bulky retroperitoneal adenopathy in abdomen and pelvis, as well as mediastinal adenopathy. There was also a peripheral pulmonary nodule. No final clinical diagnosis or stage was provided in the chart. Following the orchiectomy the patient was treated with chemo. Should we also have coded distant site lung involvement?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 9 [unknown] because "adenopathy" is not used to code lymph node involvement. The physician varied from the usual treatment for a localized testicular carcinoma, which is an orchiectomy. The physician proceeded immediately to chemotherapy as further treatment. It is not clear whether the decision to treat with chemo was based on the nodes and/or lung being involved.

Search the record for the physician's opinion regarding distant metastasis. Do not code distant involvement based on a peripheral pulmonary nodule seen on CT without further proof. If no further information is available, code the EOD-Extension field to 99.

 2002
20021112 Multiple Primaries/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: The subsequent primary table for 2001 and later indicates that 9863/3 [acute myelogenous leukemia (AML)] followed by 9980/3 [refractory anemia (RAEB)] is a new primary, but 9989/3 [myelodysplastic syndrome, NOS (MDS)] is not. Is the case below two primaries? See discussion. Bone marrow bx states: The morphologic blast count of 7% exceeds 5%, traditionally used to define relapse in the setting of acute leukemia. Given the clinical hx that the pt's peripheral blood counts had initially normalized after induction therapy, the recent fall in counts is worrisome for the possibility of early relapse. Alternatively, therapy may have simply reverted the pt's marrow from AML to a precursor myelodysplastic syndrome (such as RAEB given the blast count) from which the AML arose, with the falling counts being progression of the underlying MDS. The identification of significant dysplasia in the bone marrow at the time of diagnosis would tend to support the possibility of an underlying MDS. Clinically, it is unlikely to make a difference whether one regards the present situation as early relapse or progression of an underlying MDS. The final clinical diagnosis is "Myelodysplasia, classified as RAEB."

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

This case demonstrates a relapse of AML. The original classification of Histology as 9863/3 [AML] is correct. There is no second primary based on the information provided for this case.

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
20020018 EOD-Lymph Nodes/EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined--Cervix: What codes are used to represent these fields for a cervix primary when the only information on lymph nodes is a CT of the pelvis showing "pelvic adenopathy" (no surgery was done)? Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 9 [unknown]. Code the Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive field to 98 [No nodes examined] and the Lymph Nodes Examined to 00 [No nodes examined] because there was no resection of the primary organs. Adenopathy, NOS, per SEER guidelines, is not coded as lymph node involvement 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
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
20021025 Histology: What code is used to represent the histology "endometrioid adenocarcinoma, villoglandular type"?

Assign code 8262/3 [Villous adenocarcinoma].

According to the WHO Classification of Tumours, Breast and Female Genital Organs (2003), villoglandular is one of four variants of endometroid adenocarcinoma. The corresponding ICD-O-3 code according to WHO is 8262/3.

 2002
20021002 Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology "ductal carcinoma in situ with comedo necrosis"? See discussion.

SEER distributed breast questions to the Advisory Group made up of pathologists from different SEER regions. One question dealt with the terms comedo type, comedo necrosis and comedocarcinoma. Per the Advisory Group, "Do not code comedo necrosis. These three phrases each represent a different level of diagnosis and can't be compared. "Comedocarcinoma" is an established diagnosis of in situ carcinoma and should be coded as such. "Comedo type" refers to a type of intraductal cancer; whether it is considered to be a true diagnosis is probably still equivocal. "Comedo necrosis" refers to a description of cellular pathological events that occasionally occur within an intraductal tumor of comedo type, which should not be coded at all."

Per the SEER preferred answer: Comedo type = comedocarcinoma. Ignore comedo necrosis.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8500/2 [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