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: 02/11/2026 07:36 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
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
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
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
20021185 Surgery of Primary Site--Major salivary gland: How do you code Surgery of Primary Site for a submandibular gland primary when the operative report refers only to an excision of the submandibular "tumor" while the pathology report states the submandibular "gland" was removed? See discussion. The gross description on the pathology report indicates that the specimen consists of a "submandibular gland." A further description on the pathology report included, "the specimen was sectioned exposing a focally cystic mass that nearly replaces the entire specimen." For cases diagnosed on 1/1/2003 or after: Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 40 [Total parotidectomy, NOS; total removal of major salivary gland, NOS], per the pathology report's gross description of the specimen unless the operative report description of procedure indicates that the removal was less than total. 2002
20020054

Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Ovary: Are mucinous cystic tumors of low malignant potential diagnosed in the left ovary in 12/2000 and in the right ovary in 7/2001 reportable as two primaries? See discussion.

Page 14 of the SEER Program Code Manual, 3rd Edition, states that bilateral retinoblastomas and bilateral Wilms tumor are always single primaries whether simultaneous or not. Does this apply to bilateral ovarian tumors as well?

For cases diagnosed 2001-2006:

Borderline tumors are not reportable to SEER as of 2001. If you are collecting them in your registry, use the following procedure: Exception 1 in the SEER Program Code Manual, 3rd Edition, responds to the issue of processing ovarian tumors. Simultaneously occurring ovarian tumors with a single histology are coded as one primary. In the case you cite, the right ovary primary occurred 7 months after the left ovary primary. This is not simultaneous, so it would be counted as a second primary.

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
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
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
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
20021184 EOD-Lymph Nodes--Head & Neck: When a physician provides only "Stage IV" (i.e., an abbreviated stage) for a right posterior tongue primary with lateral extension into the oropharynx and hypopharynx, can you assume "palpable" level 2, 3 and 5 lymph nodes are involved?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 9 [Unknown], based on the information provided.

The physician's statement of an N category from a TNM may be used to determine lymph node involvement in the absence of other information. However, you cannot assume nodal involvement based on the incomplete staging information of "Stage IV" for a base of tongue primary. For this primary site, extension into the hypopharynx from this primary is equivalent to T4/Stage IV. Therefore you cannot assume the clinician's assessment of the case as Stage IV represents his assessment of lymph node involvement.

 2002
20021045 Histology/Grade, Differentiation--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent the histology "high grade malignant lymphoma with features of so called blastic NK cell cutaneous lymphoma [hematodermic lymphoma]" found on punch biopsy?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Histology field to 9709/3 [cutaneous lymphoma, NOS]. Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 8 [NK cell].

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