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: 02/24/2026 15:43 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20031083 Grade, Differentiation: How is this field coded when the only description in the pathology report is "non-high grade?" Code "non-high grade" as 9 [unknown]. 2003
20031042 Histology (Pre-2007): How are the following four histologies coded: 1) Adenocarcinoma with focal mucinous adenocarcinoma; 2) Adenocarcinoma with focal areas of bronchioalveolar adenocarcinoma, 3) Mixed infiltrating duct and focal medullary carcinoma, and 4) Mixed infiltrating duct and focal medullary carcinoma? See Description.

1. How do we code colon: Adenocarcinoma with focal Mucinous adenoca? 8140/3 or 8255/3?

2. A lung lesion with predominant adenoca with focal areas of bronchioalveolar adenoca? 8140/3 or 8255/3?

3. Mixed infiltrating duct carcinoma and medullary ca? 8510/3 or 8255/3?

4. Mixed infil duct ca and focal medulary ca? 8510/3 or 8255/3?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

1. 8140/3, Adenocarcinoma. Mucinous has a specific rule (see sinq 20010075): Include the mucinous component only if it is 50% or more of the tumor. "Focal" is not a majority term.

2. 8250/3, Bronchiolo-alveolar adenoca. Code the more specific histology.

3. 8523/3, Infiltrating duct mixed with other types of carcinoma. Combination of infiltrating duct and another type of carcinoma.

4. 8523/3, Infiltrating duct mixed with other types of carcinoma. Combination of infiltrating duct and another type of carcinoma.

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
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
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
20031075 EOD-Extension--Colon: How should this field be coded for "adenocarcinoma penetrating through bowel wall into adjacent adipose tissue? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The difference between EOD-extension codes 40 and 45 is the level of the fat involved. Code 40 is subserosal fat immediately adjacent to the muscular wall of the colon inside the serosa/visceral peritoneum. Code 45 is pericolic fat in areas where there is a serosal surface or in the retroperitoneal areas of the ascending and descending colon where there is no serosa. Code 42 was added for use when it is not possible to determine whether subserosal fat or pericolic fat is involved. Code 42 should be used only when there is a reference to 'fat' (NOS) The answer for the case example above depends on the location of the primary and whether the fat referred to is within or outside the entire thickness of the colon wall. If no additional information is available, use code 42 [Fat, NOS]. 2003
20031202 Surgery of Primary Site--Head & Neck: How is this field coded for a surgery titled "Parotidectomy with facial nerve dissection"? See Description. If the operative report is not titled "total parotidectomy," can we assume that less than total parotidectomy was done? Can we assume that "facial nerve dissection" and "facial nerve monitoring" are other ways of stating "facial nerve spared"?

Use the best information available to determine whether or not all of the parotid has been removed. It is important to read the entire operative report and review the content of the pathology report. The Op report will usually include wording about how much was removed, and this can be confirmed by the path report. Do not make assumptions about the extent of the surgery based solely on the title used on the operative report.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code 30 [less than total parotidectomy] can be used when the parotid is not totally removed, but the exact type of partial parotidectomy cannot be determined. "Facial nerve monitoring" and "Facial nerve dissection" are synonymous with "facial nerve sparing."

 2003
20031015 EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: How is the following guideline of "any mention of lymph nodes is considered indicative of involvement" applied for EOD-Extension of lymphoma cases when there is a discrepancy between physicians as to the stage at diagnosis? See discussion. A biopsy of mesenteric nodes confirmed lymphoma. A bone marrow biopsy was negative. A CT of the chest indicates "small mediastinal and bilateral hilar nodes, but without convincing adenopathy." The case was Stage 2 per the oncologist and Stage 3 per the surgeon's TNM form.

For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:

Based on the information provided for this example, the lymphoma involves one site, mesenteric nodes. Code EOD extension as 10 [Involvement of a single lymph node region].

The statement "For lymphomas, any mention of lymph nodes is indicative of involvement" refers to the terms in the paragraph above it on page 8 of the EOD manual: Palpable, enlarged, visible swelling, shotty, lymphadenopathy. While these terms are ignored for other malignancies, they should not be ignored for lymphomas. None of these terms apply to the example provided here. According to the CT, the mediastinal and hilar nodes are "small" "without convincing adenopathy." In other words, the mediastinal and hilar nodes are negative.

 2003
20031172 Hormone Therapy--Breast: Should hormonal therapy be coded as administered, when the physician states "Tamioxifen was given as a prescription?" Yes, based on the prescription for Tamoxifen, code Hormone Therapy as administered. 2003
20031005 Histology (Pre-2007): Do the terms "keratinizing" or "non-keratinizing" have to be present in the final diagnosis to use codes 8071 through 8073? See discussion. Should "squamous cell carcinoma, small cell variant" be coded to 8073 even though the final diagnoses does not include the phrase "non-keratinizing?"

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

It is acceptable to assign code 8073/3 for squamous cell carcinoma, small cell, NOS. Code squamous cell carcinoma, large cell, NOS to 8072/3. Code to non-keratinizing unless the pathology report specifies keratinizing.

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
20031181

EOD-Extension--Kaposi Sarcoma: Is a "markedly enlarged spleen" involvement for cases of Kaposi Sarcoma?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: No. Splenomegaly is not synonymous with "extension to" or "involvement of" the spleen in Kaposi's sarcoma. Look for a definite statement of Kaposi's lesion(s) involving the spleen.

 2003