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: 02/28/2026 16:43 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021101 Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: How do we code these fields for a tumor that is predominantly a "well differentiated liposarcoma" [8851/31] that has a less predominent type of "dedifferentiated liposarcoma" [8858/33]? If we code the predominant cell type [8851/3] and the worst grade [3], the case will not pass edits because well-differentiated liposarcoma requires a differentiation code of 1. See discussion. Example: Dedifferentiated liposarcoma, with the following features: size 22 cm, FNCLCC grade 3 of 3 [high grade]. Path comment: The tumor consists of predominantly well-differentiated sclerosing subtype liposarcoma and areas of high grade spindle cell (non-lipogenic) sarcoma. The area of high grade spindle cell sarcoma measured up to 7.5 cm.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8858/33 [Dedifferentiated liposarcoma, grade 3]. The pathologist gives a final designation of Dedifferentiated liposarcoma and then provides further details in the comment that do not negate the final designation.

Grade is usually coded independent of the cell type. There are a few Catch-22 situations, like this one, in which the grade is built into the name of the cell type.

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
20020066 Chemotherapy: How is treatment with Iressa (Gefitinib) coded?

Code treatment with Iressa as chemotherapy.

Iressa is an epidermal growth factor inhibitor. While it doesn't kill cells directly, it damages the cell reproduction process. We classify it as a chemotherapy agent.

 2002
20021036 EOD-Extension--Urinary Tract: Can the rules used to code bladder extension involving the term "no involvement of muscularis/and no mention of subepithelium/submuscosa" be used to code extension for other urinary tract primaries, such as ureter?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

No. The inferred descriptions of noninvasion apply to bladder cases only.

 2002
20021089 Primary Site--Ovary/Peritoneum: When ovaries are not found on a resection or if the ovaries removed are negative for malignancy, but the clinician refers to the adenocarcinoma in the pelvis as being an "ovarian" primary, should the primary site be coded as ovary, pelvic peritoneum or unknown? See discussion.

Example 1: Patient has a history of a BSO without an indication that it was done for malignancy. Pt has a resection. No ovarian tissue found. No site is mentioned in the pathology report. The clinician refers to the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in the pelvis as an "ovarian" primary.

Example 2: Resected ovaries are negative. No specific site of origin is mentioned in the path. Again, the clinician refers to the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in the pelvis as an "ovarian" primary.

 Code the Primary Site for both examples to peritoneum [C48.2]. When the physician refers to a case as "ovarian" even though the ovaries are negative or when the histology is an ovarian histology, such as papillary serous ca, the primary site should be coded to the peritoneum. Code the Primary Site to where it appears the disease is arising. 2002
20020059

Grade, Differentiation: Can a FIGO grade be coded in this field or is the FIGO grading system to be used only for EOD/Stage coding?

This answer pertains to cases prior to 2014. For cases diagnosed 2014 and forward, see http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/grade/

Do not use FIGO grade to code differentiation.

FIGO grade is something completely different from FIGO stage. FIGO stage is used to code EOD. FIGO grade is based on the percentage of non-squamous (i.e., solid) portions of the tumor and corresponds roughly to a three grade differentiation system: grade I, well differentiated (=<5% solid component); grade II, moderately differentiated (>5 - 50% solid); and grade III, poorly differentiated (> 50% solid). SEER is evaluating whether the ICD-O-3 6th digit differentiation codes (four grade categories) accurately represent the FIGO grade. For the time being, do not code FIGO grade.

For a diagnosis that includes commonly used differentiation term with a FIGO grade, such as "Moderately differentiated, FIGO grade II," disregard the FIGO grade and code the Grade, Differentiation field according to the term "Moderately differentiated."

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
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
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
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
20021162

Chemotherapy: Should radiosensitizing chemotherapy agents (i.e., drugs typically coded as treatment for cancer) be coded as treatment when they are given in combination with radiation therapy with the intention of enhancing that treatment? See discussion.

Per our consultant, these drugs are given at a lower dose than that typically given to treat cancer patients.

Do not code radiosensitizers and radioprotectants as cancer-directed therapy. Drugs typically classified as chemotherapy agents would be "ancillary drugs" for the purpose of coding cancer-directed therapy because the drugs are given at a much lower dosage than that typically given to treat cancer patients. Per Book 8, ancillary drugs are not to be coded as cancer-directed therapy. Radiosensitizers and radioprotectants do not work directly on the cancer and are not coded under any of the systemic therapy fields.

 2002