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: 11/03/2025 22:14 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021150 SEER Guidelines Over Time: Should we apply the current guidelines to previously missed older cases now being reported to the central registry? See discussion.

1. We receive "straggler" cases for coding that were diagnosed when previous coding schemes and guidelines were applicable. When a specific guideline is in place for a given time period and is later changed in some way, we try to use the specific guideline that was in place at the time of diagnosis when coding the incoming case. However, it is not always possible to remember or to be able to access those old guidelines.

2. There are situations when coding old cases that have no applicable guideline for the older diagnosis years but current SEER documentation informs the coder how to handle the situation. For example, in the SEER Program Code Manual (3rd ed), 3 new guidelines were added for coding of differentiation. There were no guidelines in the previous SEER manual that specifically covered those situations. Should we use the current rules in coding differentiation on the older incoming case?

 Code all fields according to the instructions that were in effect at the time the case was diagnosed. If the old guidelines are unavailable or non-existent, code the case in the current scheme. The year the case was abstracted will indicate that the case was a late entry into the system and that could account for the differences in coding seen by a reviewer. 2002
20020011 Histology (Pre-2007): What code should be assigned to acinar adenocarcinoma and ductal adenocarcinoma?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Assign code 8255 [Adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes]. According to histology rule #4 for a single tumor on page 86 of the 2004 SEER manual, use a combination code if one exists.

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
20021051 EOD-Extension--Pancreas: Can you explain the difference between code 10 [confined to pancreas] and code 30 [Localized, NOS]. See discussion. For example, a CT scan mentions no extension beyond the head, body or tail of the pancreas and there is no surgical resection. Should we code extension to 10 or 30?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 10 [confined to pancreas] because a scan supported the finding of no extension beyond the pancreas.

If the abstractor reviewing the medical record has scans, op reports, and/or pathology reports stating that the tumor is confined to the pancreas, code extension to 10 [confined to pancreas].

However, if the medical record only provides a patient history from a physician stating that the patient had localized pancreas, code extension to 30 [localized, NOS]. The NOS codes are used only when there is not enough information to code the specific codes (in this case, 10 or 20).

 2002
20021017 Measured Thickness--Melanoma: Can in situ melanoma cases have "depth of invasion" coded to something other than 999? See discussion. Biopsy of the left arm: Melanoma, 0.2mm in thickness. The in situ component extends to a peripheral margin.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the Measured Thickness (depth) field to 020 [0.2 mm] for this case.

In situ disease can have a depth of invasion because the surface epithelium can be of varying depths without the melanoma breaking through the basement membrane.

 2002
20021201 EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent this field for a lymphoma with retroperitoneal lymph node involvement and splenomegaly?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Per AJCC, code spleen involvement which is demonstrated by:

1. Unequivocal palpable splenomegaly alone.

2. Equivocal palpable splenomegaly with radiologic confirmation (ultrasound or CT).

3. Enlargement or multiple focal defects that are neither cystic nor vascular (radiologic enlargement alone is inadequate).

If the spleen is proven to be involved, code extension for this case as 20 [Involvement of two or more lymph node regions on the same side of the diaphragm; Stage II].

If the spleen is not proven to be involved, code extension as 10 [Involvement of a single lymph node region; Stage I].

 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
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
20021031 Primary Site--Meninges: Should the primary site for a meningioma of the right frontal lobe be coded to C71.1 or C70.0? See discussion. In the opinion of some neurologists it is more important to capture the lobe in which the meningioma is located rather than code the primary site to meninges. Should a meningioma always be coded to meninges for primary site? Code the Primary Site field to C70.0 [cerebral meninges], the suggested site code for most meningiomas. Meningiomas arise from the meninges, not the brain (although they can invade brain). ICD-O-3 does not differentiate the specific location of the brain that the meninges cover. The information of interest to neurologists would have to be captured in an optional or user-defined field. 2002
20021187

Reportability: When a hospital pathologist sends the slides from an original biopsy to two or more outside reviewers and the reviewers differ on whether or not the case is reportable, is the case SEER reportable? Does the decision to treat the patient have any bearing on whether the case would be reportable?

Typically, the final diagnosis of the reviewing pathologist is the one used to determine whether the case is SEER reportable. If two or more reviewing pathologists disagree as to whether the case should be reportable, determine reportability based on the following priority order:

1) If the patient is treated for cancer, the case is reportable.

2) If the patient is not treated for cancer, use the amended diagnosis on the original pathology report if the hospital pathologist used the reviewing pathologists' opinions in establishing his new diagnosis.

3) If there is not an amended diagnosis for the original hospital pathology report, use the clinician's opinion regarding what the diagnosis is to determine whether the case is reportable.

 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