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: 03/01/2026 10:30 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021030 Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: Why was the decision made not to code all "3-component differentiation systems" the same way that Bloom-Richardson is coded? For example, SEER codes a low grade BR to 1 for the Differentiation field and a low grade for other grading systems to 2. See discussion. Our Pathologist Consultant agrees with SEER's guideline to code the Bloom-Richardson and B&R modifications of low, intermediate and high to 1, 2 and 3 respectively and thinks all 3-component systems should be coded that same way because it better represents the differentiation of the tumor. In his opinion, coding all other 3-component systems to a differentiation of 2, 3 and 4 respectively, is overstating the degree of differentiation. The rules for coding histology are approved and used by all of the major standard setters through agreements reached in the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee. This issue is under review by our medical advisors and a special committee. Changes will be taken to the Uniform Data Standards Committee for review and approval. 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
20021056

Histology (Pre-2007)/Terminology: Are "pattern", "architecture", and "architectural pattern" terms that indicate a majority of tumor?

For tumors diagnosed 2004 to 2006:

The terminology "Architectural pattern: ____________," when used in the final pathology diagnosis, indicates a subtype that can be coded. This type of format in a pathology report is based on a College of American Pathologists (CAP) protocol. Disregard "pattern" and "architecture" when not used in accordance with the CAP protocol. See www.cap.org for cancer protocols.

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
20021194

Grade/Histology (Pre-2007)--All Sites: What code is used to represent these fields for the histology "High grade dysplasia (adenocarcinoma in situ)" or "AIN III/High grade AIN"?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field for the first example to 8140/2 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS, in situ] and for the second example to 8077/2 [AIN, grade III]. For both of the cases code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [Cell type not determined not stated or not applicable]. The 6th digit (grade code) of ICD-O-3 describes how much or how little a malignant tumor resembles the normal tissue from which it arose. In contrast, "grade" is used in the examples above to describe the degree of dysplasia, from mild dysplasia (low grade) to severe dysplasia (high grade). Do not record the degree of dysplasia in the 6th digit grade field.

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules for histology coding instructions. 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
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
20021159 Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology "mucinous carcinoma with Paget disease"?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8480/3 [mucinous carcinoma]. This answer assumes the patient presented with a single tumor. There is no combination code that includes these two entities. According to the rules for Coding Complex Morphologic Diagnoses, it would appear that the case should be coded to 8540 [Paget disease] because it is the higher code. However, this combination of histologies represents an exception to that rule. The prognosis for mucinous carcinoma is worse than the prognosis for Paget disease. As a result, it would be more appropriate to the histology to mucinous carcinoma.

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
20021062 Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent histology for "invasive ductal carcinoma with squamous differentiation"? Is "squamous differentiation" synonymous with "squamous metaplasia"?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8570/3 [Adenocarcinoma with squamous metaplasia]. Our pathology consultant agrees that squamous metaplasia is synonymous with squamous differentiation.

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
20021150 SEER Guidelines Over Time: Should we apply the current guidelines to previously missed older cases now being reported to the central registry? See discussion.

1. We receive "straggler" cases for coding that were diagnosed when previous coding schemes and guidelines were applicable. When a specific guideline is in place for a given time period and is later changed in some way, we try to use the specific guideline that was in place at the time of diagnosis when coding the incoming case. However, it is not always possible to remember or to be able to access those old guidelines.

2. There are situations when coding old cases that have no applicable guideline for the older diagnosis years but current SEER documentation informs the coder how to handle the situation. For example, in the SEER Program Code Manual (3rd ed), 3 new guidelines were added for coding of differentiation. There were no guidelines in the previous SEER manual that specifically covered those situations. Should we use the current rules in coding differentiation on the older incoming case?

 Code all fields according to the instructions that were in effect at the time the case was diagnosed. If the old guidelines are unavailable or non-existent, code the case in the current scheme. The year the case was abstracted will indicate that the case was a late entry into the system and that could account for the differences in coding seen by a reviewer. 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
20020069 Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is "evolving" multiple myeloma reportable to SEER?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:No, it is not SEER reportable. The diagnosis of "evolving" multiple myeloma could represent a plasmacytoma, plasma cell dyscrasia or another lymphoproliferative disorder. Some of these histologies are SEER reportable, but some are not. Additional information would be needed to determine reportability. If you are unable to obtain more information, the case is non-reportable.

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