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: 02/09/2026 22:54 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20041083 CS Lymph Nodes/CS Reg Nodes Eval -- Rectum: If the rectal tumor is not treated with a resection but on endoscopic ultrasound the patient is stated to have a lymph node above the primary tumor and the physician stages the case clinically as N1, should the CS Lymph Nodes field be coded to 30 [Regional lymph node(s), NOS] or 10[Rectal, NOS]? Should the evaluation field be coded to 0 [No lymph nodes removed. Evidence based on other non-invasive clinical evidence] or 1 [No lymph nodes removed. Evidence based on endoscopic examination.]? See Discussion.

Rectal primary:

5/04 sigmoidoscopy w/bx of rectal mass: adenocarcinoma. 6/04 Endoscopic ultrasound of rectal mass: invasion through wall but no definite invasion of prostate or seminal vesicles; 7.5mm lymph node located above tumor, no other enlarged lymph nodes detected. Patient did not have surgery. Physician staged lymph node involvement to clinical N1.

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Assign CS Lymph Nodes code 10 [Regional lymph nodes] based on the physician's N1. Assign code 10 because it is the lowest numerical CS code that corresponds to N1 in the scheme for rectum. Use the physician's assignment of TNM when the information in the medical record is incomplete or ambiguous. Code CS Reg Nodes Eval field 0 [No lymph nodes removed] for the case described above because there is no indication that N1 was assigned based on the endoscopic exam. The NI may be based solely on TNM documentation provided by the clinician and you do not know what the clinician used as the basis for the staging.

 2004
20041093 Reportability: When a biopsy is suspicious for cancer and re-biopsy is negative, is reportability based on the clinician's judgement (cancer vs NED)? If the re-biopsy was done because the first biopsy was inconclusive, do not report this case. If the re-biopsy was more complete, or performed in an attempt to gain a wider margin, this case is reportable based on the first biopsy. 2004
20041006 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Date of Diagnosis--Bladder: How is date of diagnosis coded when metastases consistent with a bladder primary are found more than a year after a diagnosis of non-invasive bladder cancer? See Description. A non-invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma is removed by TURB in May 2002. In January 2003, a bone biopsy reveals metastatic transitional cell carcinoma consistent with bladder primary.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code a second bladder primary diagnosed in January 2003.

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.

 2004
20041038 Reportability--Bladder: Is "low grade papillary urothelial neoplasm with no evidence of invasion" reportable to SEER? "Neoplasm" means "new growth," not malignancy. A low grade papillary urothelial NEOPLASM with no evidence of invasion [8130/1] is not reportable to SEER. However, a low grade papillary urothelial CARCINOMA with no evidence of invasion [8130/2] is reportable. 2004
20041065 Date Therapy Initiated/First-Course of Cancer-Directed Therapy Fields/Summary Stage 2000--Prostate: How do you code these fields for a case that received preventative chemo before a definitive cancer diagnosis? A patient has a "suspicious but not diagnostic" biopsy of the prostate in 09/2002. Doctor said it was not cancer and put the patient on a preventative chemo drug study (GTX-211). The patient returned for a repeat biopsy on 04/2003. Biopsy returned positive for adenocarcinoma. The patient had not been diagnosed when chemo was administered. Can the case be staged using the post-chemo information?

Stage this case the same as all other cases. Use only the information subsequent to the date of diagnosis to code stage and treatment.

The diagnosis date in the example is 04/2003. Do not use information prior to 04/2003 to code stage or treatment. Do not code the preventative chemo as treatment.

 2004
20041015 Primary Site--Lymphoma: How should this field be coded when a diffuse large B-cell lymphoma is found in the femur and in the soft tissue of the anterior chest wall but all CT scans are negative for lymphadenopathy?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Primary Site field to C809 [Unknown primary site]. The primary site of diffuse large B cell lymphoma can be either nodal or extranodal. The case described above is likely extranodal because there is no evidence of lymph node involvement. Because the extranodal site of origin is unknown, code the Primary Site to C809.

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.

 2004
20041069

Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is a meningioma invading the bone malignant and, therefore, SEER reportable if diagnosed prior to 2004? See Discussion.

1. Meningothelial meningioma with prominent nuclear pleomorphism, infiltration into dura, calvarium, temporalis skeletal muscle.

Microscopic: Multifocal infiltration by meningothelial tumor...extensive infiltration of trabecular spaces, extension through inner and outer calvarial layers by meningioma...mitotic activity in tumor noted but below the 4 per 10 high power field threshold for diagnosis of atypical meningioma.

2. Aggressive (invasive) transitional type meningioma, neuroimaging and histology imply extensive invasive meningioma involving bone and paraspinal soft tissues. Microscopy:...invaded bone...focal EMA positivity diagnostic of invasive transitional type meningioma... tumor invades bone.

The two cases above are benign meningiomas and not reportable prior to 2004. According to an expert consultant, meningiomas are in the lining cells for the inner table of the skull and as such have an affinity for bone that allows them to penetrate adjacent bone without being "malignant."

The WHO Nervous System Tumor Classification states malignant meningioma exibits histological features of frank malignancy far in excess of the abnormalities present in atypical meningioma (WHO grade II). Examples of the histologic features of malignant meningioma are obviously malignant cytology, or high mitotic index (20 or more mitoses per 10 high-power fields). They correspond to WHO grade III and are usually fatal.

 2004
20041001

Histology (Pre-2007)--Pancreas: Should pancreatic neoplasia III (PanIN III) be coded to 8010/2 [carcinoma in situ, NOS] or 8500/2 [Ductal carcinoma in situ]? See Description.

There is no specific morphology code for PanIN-III in the ICD-O-3. In the chapter for exocrine pancreas found in the sixth edition of AJCC cancer staging manual, pg 160, reference is made to PanIN-III and its inclusion with carcinoma in situ.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code PanIN-III (pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia III) as 8500/2 [Ductal carcinoma in situ, includes DIN 3: Ductal intraepithelial neoplasia 3]. PanIN-III is a synonym for carcinoma in situ according to the WHO classification of Tumors and the College of American Pathologists' Protocol for exocrine pancreas. Do not code PanIN-I or PanIN-II as cancer.

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, see SINQ 20110081 and 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.

2004
20041040 CS Tumor Size--Unknown & ill-defined site: For an unknown primary site, should this field be coded to 000 [No mass/tumor found] or 999 [Unknown; size not stated; not stated in patient record]?

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Code the CS Tumor Size field to 999 [Unknown; size not stated; not stated in patient record] when the primary site is unknown.

There is a discrepancy in Part I of the CS Manual on page 27, rule 5g, which says that primary site C80.9 should be coded as 888 not applicable. The CS Steering Committee has decided that the last line about unknown and ill-defined sites should be deleted from rule 5g. This issue will be addressed in a CS errata to be distributed in July 2004.

 2004
20041072 Histology (Pre-2007)--Colon: Must a case be specifically labeled "familial adenomatous polyposis" or is the mere presence of numerous/multiple polyps sufficient for coding the histology to FAP?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

The presence of numerous/multiple polyps is not necessarily adenomatous polyposis coli. Adenomatous polyposis is an extreme condition usually characterized by the presence of hundreds of polyps and should be identified as such either clinically or pathologically.

Look for the term "Familial adenomatous polyposis," FAP or one of its synonyms:

Adenomatosis of the colon and rectum [ACR]

Familial adenomatous colon polyposis

Familial colonic polyposis

Multiple familial polyposis

In the absence of these terms, the following probably indicate a diagnosis of FAP:

Hundreds of adenomatous polyps throughout large intestines, and at times, throughout the digestive system

Development of polyps as early as ten years of age, but more commonly at puberty

History of colectomy

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.

 2004