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: 02/21/2026 12:56 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021188 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Testis: How many primaries should be reported when seminoma is diagnosed simultaneously in both testicles and both tumors are encapsulated?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Report this cases as two primaries, unless there is information in the record confirming one 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
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
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
20021021 Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Should we add the missing terms listed in the Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases to ICD-O-3 because these absent synonyms would not be identified during hematology casefinding? See discussion. The Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases gives a preferred term for each code followed by a list of synonyms, not all of which are listed in the ICD-O-3. Two examples are: 1) 9962/3 [Essential Thrombocythemia] has 6 synonymous terms listed, but the last three of them are not in ICD-O-3. 2) 9930/3 [Myeloid Sarcoma] has the synonym "extramedullary myeloid tumor" which is not in ICD-O-3.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Do not add these synonyms to ICD-O-3. The Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases lists synonyms for the preferred terms to assist in the classification of these other terms. In the absence of a specific code for the synonym, code to the preferred term. For casefinding, these terms would be grouped in a broader category of hematologic diseases under an ICD-9-CM or ICD-10 code and, therefore, will be identified during casefinding procedures using the disease index.

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
20021055 EOD-Extension--Liver: Can we use CT scan descriptions such as "portal vein thrombosis" or "extensive infiltration of the liver" or "diffuse infiltration of the liver" to code extension for liver primaries? See discussion.

1. Would you code portal vein involvement for a CT scan description of "portal vein thrombosis"?

2. Would you code more than one lobe of the liver as involved for CT scan descriptions of "extensive infiltration of the liver" or "diffuse infiltration of the liver"?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

1. No. Thrombosis can be caused by non-cancerous conditions.

2. Yes. Code the EOD-Extension field to 65 [Multiple (satellite) nodules in more than one lobe of the liver] when "extensive infiltration" or "diffuse infiltration" is stated.

 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
20020009 EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent this field for a lymphoma that involves the spleen and lymph nodes above the diaphragm (e.g., involvement of only the spleen below the diaphragm and cervical lymph nodes above the diaphragm)?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 32 [30 + involvement of the spleen; III S]. The spleen is counted twice (once as the spleen and a second time as a lymph node region below the diaphragm). As a result, the EOD-Extension field is coded to reflect involvement of lymph node regions on both sides of the diaphragm plus involvement of the spleen. See Note 1 on the EOD scheme that states "Any lymphatic structure is to be coded the same as a lymph node region."

 2002
20021179 Primary Site/EOD Fields--Head & Neck: In the absence of an actual resection and a pathologic evaluation of the affected area, would a laryngoscopy or CT scan provide a better assessment of the EOD and the primary site?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

For Primary Site and EOD, CT information has higher priority than laryngoscopy. The CT scan gives a better picture of the involvement of the deeper tissues. A laryngoscopy falls into the "physical exam" category more than the "operative" category. The laryngoscopy report is not an "operative" report like those generated from a surgical procedure.

 2002
20021165 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--All Sites: Is there a hierarchy for using information from clinical tests (scans, radiography) to determine clinical tumor size? When the size on a radiographic report prior to pathologic diagnosis is smaller than the size of the tumor on the radiographic report that is post pathologic diagnosis, which tumor size should be used? See discussion.

Which size should be used for these examples?

1) Tumor size on a mammogram is smaller than the tumor size on an ultrasound.

2) CT of the lung reveals a 2.5 cm RUL malignancy in June. A biopsy in July confirms a malignancy. A CT is done in August prior to initiating RT which reveals a 3.1 cm RUL nodule.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Generally, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to the largest size identified in any scan. Use the largest tumor size for most cases. There is no hierarchy for multiple imaging studies, with the exception of the two situations represented in the question examples.

1). Code the size stated on the mammogram, even if that size is smaller than the one specified on the ultrasound. Generally the mammogram size is more accurate for breast cases than ultrasound.

2). Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 2.5 cm. In this example, the second scan was the same type as the first. Usually there is not that much of a difference in size between the same tests, unless the tumor has an aggressive histology. The example does not mention the histology. With certain histologies, such as small cell of the lung, a rapid growth in a short amount of time is the normal process. The fact that the size increased that much in a short period of time, using the same type of scan, is an indication of a rapidly growing tumor. It would be better to use the size on the initial scan to code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor.

 2002
20021022 Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "non oat cell carcinoma"?

For tumors diagnosed 2001-2006:

Code the Histology field to 8046/3 [non-small cell carcinoma] if the pathologist does not provide a more specific histologic type. "Non oat cell" is a synonym for "non-small cell."

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