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: 02/17/2026 10:27 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
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
20021117 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Bladder/Prostatic Urethra: Is the prostatic urethra a new primary for a case with a history of recurrent noninvasive bladder cancer that was subsequently diagnosed with transitional cell carcinoma in situ of the prostatic urethra and had a subsequent clinical diagnosis of "refractory bladder carcinoma"?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

If the histology of the bladder primary is "transitional cell carcinoma" or "papillary transitional cell carcinoma," do not code the prostatic urethra as a new primary. This is probably a case of intraluminal (mucosal) spread of the original tumor, rather than separate primaries. The clinical diagnosis supports this view.

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
20021027

EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Should a 2.0 cm ulcerated mass be coded to 020 or 999 for tumor size? See discussion.

With regard to tumor size, how would SEER interpret "2.0 cm ulcerated mass"? Should this be interpreted as an ulcer, or is it a gross description of the appearance of a mass and therefore acceptable to code tumor size to it?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

If this ulcerated mass is pathologically confirmed to be malignant, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 020 [2.0 cm] based on the size of this mass in the absence of a more precise tumor size description.

 2002
20021204 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Cervix: When both a depth and diameter of the tumor are provided and the description of the diameter is provided in a range, how do you code the size of the primary tumor? See discussion.

Path states "microscopic focus of endocervical glands considered invasive adenoca...maximum depth of that focus measures approximately 2 mm. Maximum diameter of that focus measures 3-4 mm."

What size would be coded for this case: 999, 002, 003, or 004?

Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 004 [4 mm]. Code the diameter dimension in the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field and the depth dimension iin the EOD-Extension field. Code the largest number associated if a range is provided for the diameter of the invasive tumor.

If the size of the diameter had not been mentioned, the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field would have been coded to 001 [microscopic focus or foci only], which ignores the size associated with the depth dimension of the tumor.

 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
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
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
20021007 Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery: If a named regional lymph node is aspirated should this field be coded to 1 [Regional lymph node removed, NOS], as is stated on page 127 of the SEER Program Code Manual, or should this field be coded to a more specific code when that is available (e.g. Lung primary code 3 [Ipsilateral mediastinal and/or subcarinal nodes])? For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: A generic scheme was created for the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field. As a result, there no longer are codes available that represent specific named lymph node chains. Code aspiration of a lymph node to 1 [Biopsy or aspiration of regional lymph node, NOS]. 2002
20021046 Behavior Code/EOD-Extension--Bladder: If an in situ lesion of the urinary bladder involves the von Brunn nests, is it still in situ? See discussion.

Von Brunn nests: Compact, rounded aggregates of urothelial (transitional) cells in the lamina propria, with or without connection to the surface epithelium.

Urothelial (transitional cell) carcinoma in situ...may involve von Brunn nests...

Histologic Typing of Urinary Bladder Tumours, Second Edition, WHO, pp 12 & 21

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the Behavior Code and the EOD-Extension field according to the pathology report.

If the pathology report states the tumor to be noninvasive or in situ, whether or not von Brunn nests are involved, code behavior as 2 [in situ] and extension as in situ.

If the tumor is described as invasive and involves the von Brunn nests, code the EOD-Extension field to 15 [invasive tumor confined to subepithelial connective tissue] because code 15 includes extension to the lamina propria and von Brunn nests are within the lamina propria.

 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