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: 02/20/2026 11:05 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20020051 CS Extension (Clinical)/SSF 3 (Pathologic Extension)--Prostate: Upon prostatectomy, the case was determined to be localized. There is no clinical assessment of the tumor prior to prostatectomy. Should clinical extension be coded to 99 [Unknown]? Please see discussion below. See discussion. We have a prostate case that is clinically inapparent. There is no staging info at all, no biopsy done. Then the patient has a prostatectomy with a single 0.4cm focus of Adenoca gr 3+3.

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Yes, code CS Extension (clinical) as 99 [unknown]. The extension based on the prostatectomy is coded in Site Specific Factor 3 - Pathologic Extension.

 2002
20021187

Reportability: When a hospital pathologist sends the slides from an original biopsy to two or more outside reviewers and the reviewers differ on whether or not the case is reportable, is the case SEER reportable? Does the decision to treat the patient have any bearing on whether the case would be reportable?

Typically, the final diagnosis of the reviewing pathologist is the one used to determine whether the case is SEER reportable. If two or more reviewing pathologists disagree as to whether the case should be reportable, determine reportability based on the following priority order:

1) If the patient is treated for cancer, the case is reportable.

2) If the patient is not treated for cancer, use the amended diagnosis on the original pathology report if the hospital pathologist used the reviewing pathologists' opinions in establishing his new diagnosis.

3) If there is not an amended diagnosis for the original hospital pathology report, use the clinician's opinion regarding what the diagnosis is to determine whether the case is reportable.

 2002
20021200 Date of Diagnosis: How do you code this field when the pathologic confirmation is delayed for 2 months because the clinician decides to "watch and see what happens" to a CT identified mass thought to be either a "metastasis from a previously diagnosed malignancy or a new primary"? Code the Date of Diagnosis field to the date of the scan. This is the earliest date that a recognized medical practitioner said the patient had cancer. The diagnosis on the CT scan was a malignancy. The only question was whether the mass on the scan was metastatic or a primary. 2002
20021208 Reason for No Cancer-Directed Surgery: Could you explain why this field would be coded to 1 [Cancer-directed surgery was not recommended] or 2 [Contraindicated due to other conditions] for a case that presents with distant metastasis at diagnosis?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2002:

Code the Reason for No Cancer-Directed Surgery field to 1 [Cancer-directed surgery was not recommended] for patients who present with either a primary site or histology for which surgery is not a standard treatment. Also use code 1 for those patients who present with distant disease for a primary site that is typically treated surgically. Patients with distant metastasis typically do not have surgery performed as part of first course of treatment.

Code 2 [Contraindicated due to other conditions] is used when surgery would normally be recommended for the site (given the current stage of the tumor) but other medical conditions pose too much of a risk for the patient to undergo surgery.

 2002
20021096 Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: What codes are used to represent this field for the four bladder cases described in the discussion section that have a combination of grades mentioned in the pathology reports? See discussion.

1) Final path diagnosis: papillary transitional cell carcinoma, high grade. Micro description states: High grade, poorly differentiated carcinoma.

2) Well to moderately differentiated papillary transitional cell carcinoma, grade 1-2/3.

3) Urothelial carcinoma, high grade (poorly differentiated, grade 3 of 3).

4) High grade papillary urothelial carcinoma (papillary transitional cell carcinoma, grade 3 out of 4).

For cases diagnosed January 2004 and forward:

1) Grade 4. High grade is coded 4. Code the grade stated in the final diagnosis.

2) Grade 3. Grade 1-2/3 is coded 3. Use the three-grade conversion table in the 2004 SEER manual.

3) Grade 4. Grade 3 of 3 is coded 4. Use the three-grade conversion table in the 2004 SEER manual.

4) Grade 3. "Grade 3 out of 4" is coded 3 and is more precise than "high grade."

 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
20020056 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Bladder: Is a 1998 transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder, followed by a 2001 squamous cell carcinoma of the bladder reportable as a second primary?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Yes. This case is reportable as a second primary. The rule in the SEER Program Code Manual says that invasive bladder cancers with histology codes 8120-8130 [papillary, transitional] are always coded as a recurrence and are an exception to the multiple primary rule. Squamous cell carcinoma [8070] is not a part of that exception.

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
20021003 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Whenever two hollow organs are diagnosed simultaneously with the same histology, one being invasive and the other in situ, can one assume that mucosal spread has occurred and that this situation represents one primary? In the absence of a physician statement, how do you determine mucosal spread from one organ to another?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Yes, this type of situation represents one primary. A tumor that is breaking down can be invasive in the center with in situ cancer at the margins. Occasionally the in situ margin can move into a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium.

Physicians may describe mucosal spread in various manners. You will see the terms "intramucosal extension," "in situ component extending to," or statements of an invasive component in one organ, with adjacent/associated in situ carcinoma in a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium. A frequent example of this process is bladder cancer extending into the prostatic urethra via mucosal spread.

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
20021089 Primary Site--Ovary/Peritoneum: When ovaries are not found on a resection or if the ovaries removed are negative for malignancy, but the clinician refers to the adenocarcinoma in the pelvis as being an "ovarian" primary, should the primary site be coded as ovary, pelvic peritoneum or unknown? See discussion.

Example 1: Patient has a history of a BSO without an indication that it was done for malignancy. Pt has a resection. No ovarian tissue found. No site is mentioned in the pathology report. The clinician refers to the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in the pelvis as an "ovarian" primary.

Example 2: Resected ovaries are negative. No specific site of origin is mentioned in the path. Again, the clinician refers to the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in the pelvis as an "ovarian" primary.

 Code the Primary Site for both examples to peritoneum [C48.2]. When the physician refers to a case as "ovarian" even though the ovaries are negative or when the histology is an ovarian histology, such as papillary serous ca, the primary site should be coded to the peritoneum. Code the Primary Site to where it appears the disease is arising. 2002
20021015 Ambiguous Terminology/Reportability: How should the expressions "suspicious for but not diagnostic of" and "suspicious for the possibility of early invasive adenocarcinoma" be interpreted for reportability? Would the interpretation be different depending on the primary site?

For reportability, interpret "suspicious for but not diagnostic of" as NOT diagnostic of cancer.

The phrase "suspicious for the possibility of early invasive adenocarcinoma" may indicate that the case is in situ. If no further information is available, this is not reportable.

The site of the cancer diagnosis does not change the interpretation.

 2002