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 20:11 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20051125 CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: Is there an established range of values that can be used to code negative, borderline or elevated PSA values? See Discussion. Previous SEER prostate coding guidelines listed a PSA range that could be used to code negative, borderline, or elevated values in the absence of any statement concerning elevated PSA in the medical record. Is this still in effect for SSF 2, or do we need a definite statement when only a numeric value is given?

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.

This matter is under consideration by the CS Steering Committee. The CS Steering committee is reviewing options for incorporating SEER guidelines into the CS manual.

 2005
20051059

Behavior/Date of Diagnosis--Lung: If the term "Pancoast tumor, NOS" is malignant by definition, should the date of diagnosis be coded to the date of the clinical diagnosis when the clinical diagnosis is made prior to the histologic confirmation of the malignancy?

Yes, Pancoast tumor is by definition malignant. It is defined as a lung cancer in the uppermost segment of the lung that directly invades into the brachial plexus (nerve bundles) of the neck, causing pain. If a Pancoast tumor was identified on imaging prior to the biopsy, the date of diagnosis should be linked to the Pancoast tumor report.

 2005
20051111 Chemotherapy/Immunotherapy: Which drugs changed categories when SEER*Rx came out?

Please refer to http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/seerrx/

SEER*Rx is effective for cases diagnosed 1-1-2005 and forward. It replaces all previous references. It is neither required nor recommended that cases treated prior to 2005 be recoded.

The following drugs in the 5/17/02 Book 8 update changed from immunotherapy to cytostatic chemotherapy in SEER*Rx:

alemtuzumab/Campath

bexarotene/Targretin

bevacizumab/Avastin

bortezomib/Velcade

pegaspargase/Oncaspar

rituximab/Rituxan

trastuzumab/Herceptin

asparaginase

The following drugs may have been coded as monoclonal antibodies but are radioisotopes in SEER*Rx:

epratuzumab/LymphoCide

ibrituzumab

tiuxetan/Zevalin

tositumomab/Bexxar

Any other monoclonal antibodies either remained as monoclonal antibodies or it was a local decision to code them as immunotherapy.

There were no drugs that changed from chemotherapy to immunotherapy.

 2005
20051025

Reportability/Behavior--Thymus: Are "lymphocyte predominant thymoma with microscopic capsule invasion" and "Polygonal epithelial cell thymoma with invasion of the lung and pericardial fat" reportable?

Please see SINQ 20110038 for the most recent information on reporting thymoma.

2005
20051028 Date of Diagnosis--Bladder: Should the date of diagnosis be based on the 1/7/04 urine cytology with low grade transitional cell carcinoma or the subsequent 1/27/04 pathology findings of papillary transitional cell carcinoma? In this case, the date of the cytology is the date of diagnosis, 01-07-2004. 2005
20051145

CS Extension/CS Mets at Dx--Colon: How is a small focus of metastatic disease in the submucosa coded for a sigmoid primary? See Discussion.

Path final diagnosis states: "No lymph node metastases identified. One submucosal met in a block taken from a surgical margin section." Path micro states: "Microscopic involvement of the border between the serosa and muscularis propria. Sections of proximal & distal surgical margins reveal no tumor in one, and a small focus of metastatic disease in the submucosa of the other. This focus of tumor exists in a small vascular channel and is complete in and of itself; ie, it has not been cut thru by excision of the specimen from the patient."

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.

This submucosal metastasis does not affect CS extension. It is not part of CS or TNM staging.

According to the TNM supplement, "Multiple tumour foci in the mucosa or submucosa ("skip metastasis") are not part of the TNM classification and should not be classified as distant metastasis.

 2005
20051074 CS Extension/CS Lymph Nodes--Colon: What codes are used when large vessel invasion (V2 grossly evident) is stated to be present on a pathology report? See Discussion.

Example

Cecum, right hemicolectomy: poorly differentiated invasive adenocarcinoma of the cecum. Large vessel invasion (V2-grossly evident) is present. Microscopic description: The grossly described matted lymph node tissue shows an irregular nuclear contour and is classified as V2, grossly evident venous invasion based on staging criteria of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 6th Edition.

Per note 2 in the coding scheme for CS-Extension, a nodule with irregular contour in the pericolic adipose tissue should be coded in CS-Extension to code 45. Is the large vessel invasion described in the path report the same process as a tumor nodule in pericolic fat? Should note 2 be used and CS-Extension coded to 45?

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.The description of large vessel invasion and irregular nuclear contour from the example above describes grossly matted LYMPH NODE tissue. Do not code this in the CS Extension field. Code the CS Lymph Nodes field appropriately based on the rest of the information for this case.

When large vessel invasion and irregular nuclear contour is used to describe a "tumor nodule," rather than a recognizable lymph node, code it in the CS extension field.

 2005
20051036 Date of Diagnosis--Sarcoma: Should the date of diagnosis be coded to the date of biopsy or the date of birth for an infant biopsied at 3 days of age and stated to have a diagnosis of congenital alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma, widely metastatic?

Code the date of the biopsy as the date of diagnosis. This is the date the cancer was first identified by a medical practitioner.

Note: SEER collects the Month and Year of diagnosis. The "day" of diagnosis is not collected by SEER.

 2005
20051092 CS Extension--Kidney: When an incidentally found 5 cm mass discovered on a CT scan during a work-up for colon carcinoma is stated to be consistent with renal cell ca, should the case be staged as localized or unknown when no other information is available related to a work-up for the kidney primary?

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 what is known. In the example above, the tumor size and the extension are known and can be coded. The information is limited, but not completely missing.

Code what you DO know rather than coding nothing. Any metastases from the kidney would have been discovered during the workup of the rectal cancer.

 2005
20051131

Recurrence/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Primary Site--Breast: Is a malignancy that occurs in 2005 in a mastectomy scar years following an original diagnosis of breast cancer in 1971 a recurrence (not reportable) or a new primary (breast or chest wall, NOS)? See Discussion.

The patient had a right mastectomy for breast carcinoma in 1971. In 2005, she came in with a mass in the right axilla and a right chest wall mass in the mastectomy scar. Excision of the axillary mass and biopsy of the chest wall mass revealed invasive adenocarcinoma with a similar histologic pattern. The axilla specimen contained no benign breast tissue. IHC stains exhibit strongly positive for ER, mildly positive for PR and negative for HER2/neu. The pathologist says "Although these findings are consistent with recurrent breast carcinoma, they are not specific for such. Recurrence after 34 yrs. is most unusual."

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

The 2005 diagnosis is a new primary. The 1971 site differs from the 2005 site and there are more than two months between the two. Without further information, assign topography code C761 [chest wall]. The pattern of spread, including regional extension, is different for a primary of the chest wall compared to a primary in the breast. Coding the primary site to C761 will group this case with similar cases.

If further information can be obtained, look for old records that describe the extent of the 1971 mastectomy. It is possible that there was breast tissue left on the chest wall. Residual breast tissue is often present following mastectomy (simple, modified, or even radical). New carcinoma can develop in the remaining breast 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.

 2005