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 05:47 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
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
20021115 EOD-Lymph Nodes--Testis: In coding lymph node involvement for a testicular primary, should we use code 5 (Size not stated) when there is not a pathologic size of the lymph node provided? See discussion. Should Note 1 in the testis EOD be changed to "Metastases in lymph nodes are now measured by the size of the lymph node as stated in pathology report"? The SEER EOD-88, 3rd Edition, states that "when size of regional lymph nodes is required, code from the pathology report."

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

For testis cases only, "metastasis in lymph nodes" is measured by the size of the lymph node or the lymph node mass. It is acceptable to code the size of this metastasis from a CT scan or other imaging when a pathology specimen is not available for testicular primaries.

 2002
20020060 Terminology/EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Lung: Can the term "opacity" be used to code the size of the primary lung tumor when it is given a size in an imaging study but the "opacity" is not referred to as being suspicious for cancer? See discussion. Example: How do you code tumor size for a lung primary in which the patient had a CT of the chest that describes a "4 cm opacity in the RUL of the lung." A biopsy of the RUL lung is positive for carcinoma? Would your answer be different if the opacity was described as being "suspicious for carcinoma"?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 999 [Not stated] for the example given above. However, if the opacity was described as a "mass" or as "suspicious for cancer," the size could be coded to 040 [4 cm].

 2002
20021136 Date of Diagnosis/Histology (Pre-2007): How should we code these fields for "atypical fibroxanthoma" of the left cheek diagnosed in October 1999 that is followed by a June 2000 punch biopsy with a microscopic description in the pathology report of "superficial form of malignant fibrous histiocytoma"? See discussion. Should the diagnosis date for the malignant fibrous histiocytoma be October 1999 because it is called "residual/recurrent atypical fibroxanthoma" in the June 2000 final diagnosis of pathology report? In the microscopic description it is called a "malignant fibrous histiocytoma." Per an August 2000 outpatient note, "The patient probably has malignant fibrous histiocytoma. His course has been more aggressive than that seen with an atypical fibroxanthoma."

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8830/3 [Malignant fibrous histiocytoma]. Code the Date of Diagnosis to October 1999 based on the clinician's statement of "The patient probably has malignant fibrous histiocytoma. His course has been more aggressive than that seen with an atypical fibroxanthoma." Assume that this statement means that the physician re-evaluated the clinical course and decided that the original tumor must have been malignant.

If the original slides are reviewed and the diagnosis is changed to a malignancy or if the clinician states that the first occurrence was obviously malignant, backdate the date of diagnosis to the first occurrence.

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
20020035

First Course Treatment--Lymphoma: How should an antibiotic regimen such as bismuth or omeprazole, amoxicillin, and metronidazole be coded for a MALT lymphoma of the stomach associated with Helicobacter pylori infection? See discussion.

If we do not count the antibiotic regimen as cancer-directed treatment but this is the only treatment given and the lymphoma disappears, is it problematic to have a cancer status of "no disease" recorded in a patient that supposedly was not "treated"?

Do not code antibiotic regimens as Cancer-Directed Therapy. These drugs are intended to treat the bacteria and not the cancer. This type of treatment is ancillary even if it is the only type of treatment given. You may designate a user-defined field to capture this information if desired. The coding combination of a cancer status of "no disease" and all treatment fields coded to "no treatment" is allowable.

 2002
20020016 Primary Site (Pre-2007)--Prostate/Prostatic Urethra: What code is used to represent primary site for an "adenocarcinoma with spindle cell differentiation" of the prostatic urethra?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Primary Site field to C61.9 [prostate] because the histology is adenocarcinoma.

When a malignancy is identified in the prostatic urethra, look at the histology to determine the primary site. If it is a transitional cell carcinoma, code the Primary Site field to C68.0 [urethra] and if it is an adenocarcinoma, code to C61.9 [prostate].

The EOD scheme is ultimately collapsed into the TNM scheme. The TNM system differentiates between adenocarcinoma of the prostate and transitional cell carcinoma of the urethra. Only adenocarcinoma of the prostate is staged by the prostate scheme. Transitional cell carcinoma of the prostatic urethra is coded to C68.0 [urethra] and staged with that scheme.

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
20021144 EOD-Extension--Colon: What code is used to represent this field for a mid-ascending colon primary that invades through muscularis propria and into subserosal fibroadipose tissue that also presents with a "separate serosal nodule" of carcinoma within cecum that is consistent with a tumor implant (cT3, N0, M1)?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [Metastasis], because the nodule of carcinoma in the cecum is not contiguous with the mid-ascending primary colon tumor.

 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
20020031 Multiple Primaries--Hematopoietic, NOS: When the SEER Single versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table indicates that a disease is not a new primary, but a pathologist or clinician states that it is a new primary, do we use the physician information or the table?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:If the physician clearly states that this is a new primary, submit it as a new primary. Otherwise, use the Single versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table.

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
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