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: 02/11/2026 01:42 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021131 EOD-Extension: If extension/metastasis is found within 4 months of diagnosis, but after first course of cancer-directed therapy has ended, should that involvement be excluded when coding the EOD-extension field? See discussion. Example: Spinal drop metastasis was diagnosed within 4 months of the initial diagnosis of a localized astrocytoma, but after treatment with surgery and XRT was completed.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Do not include the spinal metastasis because it was diagnosed after the extent of disease was established. If metastasis was not present at diagnosis, and not discovered during the original metastatic work-up, it is progression of disease.

 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
20021026 Surgery of Primary Site--Skin: Should Mohs surgery be code to 27 [Excisional biopsy] or 31 [Shave biopsy followed by a gross excision of the lesion]? See discussion. Under surgery coding in the 5/22/01 SEER Abstractor/Coder Workshop book, page 20, it states that Mohs surgery should be coded as an excisional biopsy. The ACoS I&R dated 6/6/2001 states that it should be coded to 31. For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 34 [Mohs surgery, NOS], 35 [Mohs with 1-cm margin or less] or 36 [Mohs with more than 1-cm margin]. 2002
20021008 Surgery of Primary Site/Surgical Procedure of Other Site--Bladder: What codes are used to represent these fields for a deeply invasive bladder primary treated initially with a TURP (for suspected prostate extension that turns out to be pathologically negative) and a TURB that is subsequently treated with a cystoprostatectomy?

For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after, code:

1. Surgery of Primary Site field to 60 [Radical cystectomy (male only)] because the cystoprostatectomy was the most extensive (definitive) surgery performed to the primary site.

2. Surgical Procedure of Other Site to 2 [Non-primary surgical procedure to other regional sites] based on the TURP.

 2002
20031174 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Recurrence--Breast: Has SEER established a priority of medical opinions to determine the number of primaries or a time parameter establishing recurrence? When a pathologist and a physician refer to the subsequent reappearence in the same breast as both "recurrence" and "new primary"? See Description.

Example 1. Patient was diagnosed with right breast cancer in 1999 and underwent lumpectomy followed by radiation therapy. In 2001, patient was again found to have right breast cancer and was admitted for mastectomy. The surgeon stated that this was recurrence. The patient's primary care physician stated the patient had a new primary. Is there a priority order if the multiple physicians involved in a patient's care do not agree on the diagnosis?

Example 2. Patient was diagnosed in 1998 with left breast cancer. In 2000, the patient again was diagnosed with left breast cancer. There was no mention of recurrence so case was accessioned as a second primary. In 2003, patient was again admitted for an unrelated disease. In the H&P, the physician stated that the patient had recurrent breast cancer in 2000. Do we remove the second primary from our file based on this statement three years later?

Example 3. Patient was diagnosed with Paget's disease with intraductal carcinoma, left breast, in 1997. In August 2002, patient underwent left mastectomy for DCIS, left breast. In November 2002, patient's oncologist stated that patient had been on Evista for 5 years and had recurrent cancer despite Evista. Do we accession this as one or two primaries?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Use the best information available. In general, information from the time closest to the event in question is more accurate than later information. The opinion of the pathologist tends to be the most valuable. Beyond that, SEER has not established a hierarchy of physician opinions.

Be aware that a physician's use of the term "recurrence" does not always mean that the second tumor originated from cells from the first tumor.

Examples 1, 2 & 3. Follow SEER rules for determining multiple primaries. In each case, the diagnoses are more than two months apart. Abstract as two primaries.

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.

 2003
20031001 EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Cervix: How do you code these fields when the cancer extended to the pelvic wall and there are periaortic LN metastases?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Assign extension code 65 for contiguous (direct) extension of tumor from the cervix to the pelvic wall. Assign extension code 85 only if the pelvic wall is involved with discontinuous extension from the cervix; i.e., the cervical tumor spread indirectly (through lymph or vascular channels) to the pelvic wall. Code the pelvic wall involvement in the Extension field and the periaortic lymph node involvement in the Lymph Node field. When the computer does the algorithm, it will look at the periaortic lymph nodes and report the summary stage as distant and the TNM stage group as IV because periarotic nodes are M1. Do not code the periaortic lymph nodes in both fields. This is stage IV, distant disease, due to the periaortic lymph node involvement (EOD lymph nodes code 6).

 2003
20031002 Histology (Pre-2007)--Cervix: Is 8384/3 [adenocarcinoma, endocervical type] a specific histology type that must be stated or does it apply to any adenocarcinoma arising in the endocervical? Should the ICD-O-3 histology code of 8384/3 [Adenocarcinoma, endocervical type] be used for final diagnoses of "adenocarcinoma of the endocervix" or "adenocarcinoma of the cervix"?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Histology code 8384 is for adenocarcinoma of endocervical type. This specific type (endocervical) must be part of the diagnosis in order to assign code 8384. This histology code is not to be used for Adenocarcinoma, NOS of the endocervix or cervix.

Adenocarcinoma of endocervical type can be diagnosed in other tissues and if so it will be stated as endocervical type. Adenoca of the endocervix would be coded to plain Adenoca.

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.

 2003
20031171 Reportability: Is pseudomyxoma peritonei always reportable? See Description.

In the ICD-O-3, pseudomyxoma peritonei has a behavior code of 6, indicating that it is malignant. Does this imply that pseudomyxoma peritonei is always a reportable malignancy? In the past, our pathologist consultant told us that pseudomyxoma peritonei is only a reportable malignancy if the underlying tumor is malignant. A benign cystadenoma of the appendix, for example, can rupture causing pseudomyxoma perionei. Does SEER agree with our pathologist consultant?

Example: Patient was found to have psuedomyxoma peritonei. Right hemicolectomy was done. Path reported an appendix with mucinous cystic tumor of undetermined malignant potential. A definite diagnosis of cancer can not be rendered.

Reportability is determined from the behavior of the primary tumor and the behavior of implants. If either are malignant, the case is reportable.

The case example does not seem to be reportable, based on the available information. Cancer diagnosis has not been made according to the pathology report.

 2003
20031204 Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: How is this field coded for cryosurgery of the breast?

For cases diagnosed 2003 and later: For cryosurgery alone, without a pathology specimen, assign site-specific surgery code 19 [Local tumor destruction, NOS]. Cryosurgery, cryotherapy or cryoablation uses extreme cold to destroy the tumor cells.

If a specimen is sent to pathology use code 20 [Partial mastectomy, NOS] rather than code 19.

If cryosurgery is followed by further surgery, do not use code 19.

 2003
20031153 Laterality/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Ovary: Are ovarian primaries with bilateral involvement always coded to laterality 4 (bilateral)? See Description. Example: "Right ovary with mass replacing majority of ovarian tissue consistent with serous adenoca. Lt ovary with foci of adenoca." No specific statement of primary. Can we assume that the malignancy originated in the right ovary since it is more extensively involved or should laterality be coded 4 because both ovaries have tumor?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

If one ovary is listed as the primary site, code laterality to that ovary. The example above is one of those times when you would code to the single ovary. The issue of one or both ovaries being involved is handled in staging.

Abstract the example above as a single primary with code 1 [Right] for laterality.

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.

 2003