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: 02/10/2026 01:02 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
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
20031009 Reportability/Behavior Code--Soft Tissue: Is a final diagnosis of a forearm mass diagnosed as "Angiomatoid malignant fibrous histiocytoma [see note]" reportable? The NOTE reads "Angiomatoid malignant fibrous histiocytoma is a low grade borderline lesion with a tendency for local recurrence, but a very low potential for distant metastases." Is behavior /1 or /3? Angiomatoid malignant fibrous histiocytoma is reportable with a behavior code of /3 according to ICD-O-3. The Final Diagnosis takes precedence over the "note." 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
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
20031029 Histology (Pre-2007)/Grading--Head & Neck: Can terms that commonly modify histologic types or grades be used if they are only expressed in the microscopic portion of the pathology report? See Description. Final path diagnosis on a biopsy of the base of tongue is squamous carcinoma. The micro portion of the path report states the following: Multiple fragments of abnormal epithelium with a complex growth pattern. Many of the cells are small and poorly differentiated, interspersed with areas of well-differentiated keratinized epithelium. This is consistent with squamous cell carcinoma in situ with areas of invasive carcinoma. Do we code histology to 8070/3 or 8071/3?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Yes, code using terms from the microscopic description if there is a definitive statement of a more specific histologic type.

Code the case example as 8070/33 [Squamous cell carcinoma, NOS, poorly differentiated]. The microscopic description adds grade information, but does not make a definitive statement of a more specific histologic type. "Keratinized epithelium" is not the same as keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (8071/3). The mention of "areas of well-differentiated keratinized epithelium" refers to "normal" tissue within the specimen, in contrast to a type of neoplastic tissue.

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
20031023 Grade, Differentiation: Can differentiation be coded from the pathology report for a biopsy from tissue involved by local recurrence? Code grade from original primary site. Do not code grade from a local recurrence. 2003
20031206 EOD-Extension: How is this field coded for synchronous primaries when metastatic disease is found and there is no statement to indicate which primary is the source of the metastases? See Description. Patient was diagnosed with both esophageal and pancreatic cancer. Liver metastases were also identified. The source of the liver mets is unknown. For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Search the record for information about the source of the metastasis. If no such information can be found, code the metastasis to both primaries. Update the abstracts when information becomes available confirming the primary site responsible for the metastasis. Assuming the liver metastases in the example above are distant (i.e. not contiguous) code extension as 85 [Metastasis]. 2003
20031142 Other Therapy/Immunotherapy--Hematopoietic, NOS: How should erythropoietin be coded for leukemia or other hematopoietic diseases? Do not code Erythropoietin as treatment, it is used as an ancillary drug for leukemias or other hematopoietic diseases. Record information about erythropoietin in the text field. 2003
20031143

Ambiguous terminology/EOD-Extension: Is the term "within" a term of involvement in coding extent of disease? See Description.

For example: a kidney tumor is described as "completely encased within the renal capsule with no extension into perirenal fat." Does this mean the renal capsule has been invaded (extension code 20) or that the tumor is totally contained within an area surrounded by the renal capsule (extension code 10)?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The term "within" is not one of the listed ambiguous terms for EOD. Determine extent of involvement from the context in which "within" appears.

In the example, "Encased" is an ambiguous term meaning not involved. Code extension for the example to 10 [Invasive cancer confined to kidney cortex and/or medulla].

 2003
20031176 EOD-Patholgic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Examined: How is this field coded when there is no lymph node count in the final pathology diagnosis and the gross description states "four possible lymph nodes are dissected"? See Description. Patient with kidney cancer underwent nephrectomy and lymph node removal. Final path diagnosis was Lymph nodes, pericaval biopsy, lymph nodes with no evidence of carcinoma. Per Gross description: Received in formalin as pericaval lymph node is 2.5 cm piece of fibrofatty tissue, from which four possible lymph nodes are dissected. For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the number of regional lymph nodes examined as 04. This is as accurate as possible for this situation. 2003