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: 02/24/2026 00:09 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021139 Date of Diagnosis/EOD-Extension--Placenta: How do you code these fields for a patient who presents with a vaginal metastatic lesion for a placenta primary? Should EOD-Extension be coded to 60 [Other genital structures NOS: vagina, ovary, broad ligament, fallopian tube] or 85 [metastasis other than lung]? See discussion. Pt had D&C Feb 5 with features of complete mole. On March 7, pt seen for a mass just inferior to the urethral meatus. At path, vaginal introitus fragments were consistent with choriocarcinoma. At time of March 23 admit for chemo, history is given as large hydatidiform mole evacuated Feb 5. Her beta hCG titers initially fell but approximately one month later hCG titers rose. At that time, she had an obvious vaginal metastatic lesion. For cases diagnosed 1998 or after: Code the Date of Diagnosis field to March 7, which is the date that the choriocarcinoma was first diagnosed. There was no slide review or clinical statement that the first occurrence was obviously malignant. Therefore, the vaginal mets is not progression and is codeable as extension. Code the EOD-Extension field to 60 [other genital structures, NOS] according to the current EOD scheme for placenta. Even though the mass is discontinuous, it is still included in code 60 per the guidelines of the FIGO system on which the EOD is based. 2002
20021204 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Cervix: When both a depth and diameter of the tumor are provided and the description of the diameter is provided in a range, how do you code the size of the primary tumor? See discussion.

Path states "microscopic focus of endocervical glands considered invasive adenoca...maximum depth of that focus measures approximately 2 mm. Maximum diameter of that focus measures 3-4 mm."

What size would be coded for this case: 999, 002, 003, or 004?

Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 004 [4 mm]. Code the diameter dimension in the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field and the depth dimension iin the EOD-Extension field. Code the largest number associated if a range is provided for the diameter of the invasive tumor.

If the size of the diameter had not been mentioned, the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field would have been coded to 001 [microscopic focus or foci only], which ignores the size associated with the depth dimension of the tumor.

 2002
20021119 Radiation--Choroid: How do you code treatment involving a "radioactive iodine plaque" for choroidal melanomas?

Code the Radiation field to 2 [Radioactive implants]. Codes for radiation are based on HOW the radiation is delivered, rather than the particular type of radioactive material used.

Radioactive eye-plaques contain rice-sized iodine-125 or palladium-103 seeds which emit low energy photons. They are sewn or glued into the eye. The plaque remains for 5 to 7 days and is then removed.

 2002
20021093 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Colon: When an adenocarcinoma is stated to be arising in an adenoma and the "tumor size" stated in the final pathologic diagnosis is the same size as the mass described in the gross description, should we assume that the entire polyp has been totally/near totally replaced by tumor and code the tumor size stated in the final path diagnosis?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field as stated by the pathologist in the final pathologic diagnosis. If the size of the tumor is the same as the size of the polyp, assume the polyp was completely replaced by tumor.

 2002
20021113 Surgical Procedure of Other Site--Pancreas: Should an embolization of liver metastasis for a pancreas primary be coded as treatment?

Code "embolization" (or hepatic artery embolization, HAE) to a metastatic site in Surgical procedure of Other Site. Assign code 1 [nonprimary surgical procedure performed].

This procedure was previously coded as other therapy, experimental. Code as surgery as of July 2005.

 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
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
20021129 Histology/Date of Diagnosis--Hematopoietic, NOS: What code is used to represent histology for a June 2001 diagnosis of "myelodysplastic syndrome" followed by a September 2001 bone marrow biopsy diagnosis of "myelodysplasia evolving into an acute leukemic state"?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

Code the Histology field to 9989/3 [myelodysplastic syndrome] and the Date of Diagnosis field to June 2001.

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
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
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