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: 02/14/2026 06:08 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021070 CS Extension/CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: How would you interpret the phrase "axillary lymph node tissue, not clearly a lymph node" or the phrase "satellite nodule of invasive tumor, left axillary lymph node or chest wall tissue"? See discussion. A lumpectomy with axillary lymph node dissection and removal of nodule in anterior axillary line revealed negative lymph nodes. The nodule specimen was labeled "axillary lymph tissue, not clearly a lymph node". The microscopic description for that specimen stated "Fibroadipose tissue. A fragment of a lymph node is incidentally sampled in block 4 and it is free of tumor". The final path dx stated "Satellite nodule of invasive tumor, left axillary lymph node, or chest wall tissue. Comment: If the tissue is considered chest wall this would be a stage IIIB. If it is considered an intramammary satellite nodule, this is a stage I". The clinician repeated what the comment said, and added "If lymph node mets, this is a stage II." Code the invasive tumor in the axillary area as a regional lymph node metastasis. According to the AJCC, cancerous nodules in the axillary fat adjacent to the breast, without histologic evidence of residual lymph node tissue, are classified as regional lymph node metastases. 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
20021143 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: Should just one primary be reported when only ductal carcinoma in situ is diagnosed initially but the mastectomy performed as part of the first course of cancer-directed therapy, but more than 2 months after diagnosis, contains a diagnosis of invasive ductal carcinoma? See discussion. How do we code this case in light of the EOD guideline that states we include all information collected within 4 months of diagnosis or through the completion of first surgery in the absence of disease progression when coding.

For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:

Report this case as one invasive primary, unless stated to be two primaries by the clinician. This appears to be a single primary with different behaviors, rather than separate tumors.

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
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
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
20020030 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: 1) Can we add "Imaging studies" to those EOD schemes that currently do not include this on their priority list for coding size? 2) When an EOD scheme already lists specific types of imaging studies, are we limited to only those types of procedures or can any imaging study be used to code size? See discussion. How do we determine where to add "imaging studies" to the priority listing? Currently the hierarchy differs for primaries that currently include imaging studies on their EOD schemes. For example, on the breast EOD imaging ranks lower than the physical exam while on the thyroid EOD imaging ranks higher than the physical exam.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

1) You may add "Imaging" to the size priority list for all EOD schemes that currently do not include it. Prioritize it just above the physical exam for these sites.

2) You may use the information from any imaging technique to code tumor size, even for those sites such as breast and bladder where specific imaging tests are mentioned.

 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
20021172 EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: How much information is needed for a head and neck primary in order to code extension to localized versus unknown? What code is used to represent this field when the only information for a buccal cavity primary is a positive aspiration of the buccal mass?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension to 99 [Unknown] for this case until more information is received. The available information does not describe the primary site and there is a complete lack of staging information.

Head and neck cancers spread early and often to nodes. Do not code the EOD-Extension to localized when the information is as limited as it is for this example.

 2002
20021105 Grade, Differentiation: Do we code to the highest grade even when no grade is given at the time of initial diagnosis, but a grade is obtained on tissue removed after non-surgical treatment has occurred? See discussion.

1. In 2000 a pleural fluid aspirate had no grade. Pt treated with chemo. In 2000 a BSO diagnosed high grade papillary serous adenocarcinoma of the ovary.

2. In 1993 a prostate bx had no grade. Pt treated. In 2001 prostate bx revealed a Gleason's 4+3.

Code the grade at the time of initial diagnosis (if the specimen is from the primary site) or to the grade identified as part of a first course of cancer-directed surgery to the primary site. When different grades are specified for tissue pathologically reviewed from the primary site before and after treatment, code the higher grade. This is true even if the higher grade is obtained while the pt is still undergoing first course of cancer-directed therapy.

1. Code the Grade to 4 [high grade], if the grade information from the BSO specimen represents the grade associated with primary site surgical specimen. Even though the grade was obtained after first course of cancer-directed therapy started, it was obtained during first course of cancer-directed therapy.

2. Code the Grade to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable]. Grade was obtained well after the first course of cancer-directed therapy ended.

 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