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: 02/16/2026 03:15 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20051120 CS Eval--Colon: Should 1 [No surgical resection done...] or 3 [Surgical resection performed...] be used to correctly reflect this field when a surgical observation is "adherent to duodenum" but the extension per the pathology is stated to be to the "subserosal tissue"? See Discussion. 7/2/04 Op Findings 5 cm mass in mid transverse colon involving also the right colon; mass was adherent to duodenum without obvious invasion. 7/2/04 Path: Rt & Transverse Colon: 6x5 cm mass, micro: MD Adenoca with invasion of subserosal tissue; margins neg. 17/17 colic LNs negative.

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.For the case described above, code extension as 46 [Adherent to other organ...no microscopic tumor found in adhesion]. Code CS TS/Ext eval as 3 [Surgical resection performed...].

Surgery was performed for this case. The fact that the adherence to the duodenum was proven not to be tumor involvement should be coded as 3 in CS TS/Ext Eval. By using eval code 3, the case will map to a pathologic T indicating that the patient had resective surgery. Eval code 1 would map to a clinical T, incorrect for this case.

 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
20051100 Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a "myeloproliferative disorder" reportable when the pathology report comment states this likely represents the "early/cellular phase of myelofibrosis/myeloid metaplasia" with cytogenetics and PCR pending?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:This case is not yet reportable. The bone marrow diagnosis "myeloproliferative disorder" is not reportable to SEER. It is likely that if this condition progresses, it will eventually be reportable.

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.

 2005
20051023

Reportability/Recurrence (Pre-2007)--Bladder: If a patient has had recurrent invasive bladder cancers since 1971, should the latest recurrence in 2003 be SEER reportable because the case has yet to be reported to SEER?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Because this 2003 recurrent bladder cancer was initially diagnosed prior to 1973, it is not reportable to SEER.

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
20051109 CS Site Specific Factor/Terminology--Breast: Does the term "focal areas" of in situ carcinoma qualify as "minimal" in situ component when coding SSF6 field (assessment of the invasive and in situ components present) in the CS breast scheme?

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.

Yes, the term "focal areas" of in situ carcinoma describes a minimal in situ component.

 2005
20051133 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: How are the number of primaries, histologies and CS extension fields coded for breast tissue that contains separate areas of invasive ductal carcinoma, intraductal carcinoma and Paget disease? See Discussion.

Excisional biopsy of a breast mass: 1.0 cm tumor that was infiltrating ductal carcinoma, high grade, with an associated intraductal component with comedonecrosis.

Pathology report for the mastectomy three weeks later: no residual tumor was found near the original biopsy site. In another portion of the same breast was found high-grade intraductal carcinoma involving the nipple ducts, with Paget Disease of the nipple. (No size was given for this.)

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

This is a single primary. According to Exception 3 of Multiple Primary Rule 6 for multiple tumors, combinations of Paget disease and ductal carcinoma are a single primary. The histology code for this case is 8541 [Paget disease and infiltrating duct carcinoma]. Assign CS extension code 10 [confined to breast tissue] based on the information above.

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
20051040 Primary Site--Sarcoma: What is the correct topography code for a partial lung lobectomy with pathology diagnosis of "pulmonary sarcoma with smooth muscle differentiation"? See Discussion.

Operative report: palpable 2x2cm mass in the mediastinal surface of the rt middle lobe and the contiguous upper lobe together.

Path comment after partial lung lobectomy: In all likelihood this is a malignant process occurring in smooth muscle changes surrounding vessels within the lung versus an undifferentiated epithelial tumor.

ADDENDUM DX: low grade pulmonary sarcoma with smooth muscle differentiation.

Consultant's report concurs with that of the original pathologist's report of malignant neoplasm compatible with smooth muscle origin.

 This case is unique. Assign topography code C493 [Connective, subcutaneous and other soft tissue of thorax]. Based on the information provided, this sarcoma has smooth muscle differentiation and originated in the muscle. Code the primary site to muscle. 2005
20051073 Reportability/Behavior--Colon: Is a final diagnosis of "mucosal carcinoid" of the colon reportable with a behavior code 2 [in situ] or 3 [invasive] if the microscopic description states that a "malignancy is not appreciated"? See Discussion.

2002 carcinoid case. Path final diagnosis: sigmoid colon polyp, bx-- sm mucosal carcinoid (1.5mm) w/crush artifact in a colonic polyp showing assoc inflammatory and hyperplastic changes. Micro: due to prominent crush artifact, histologic detail is compromised; however, significant atypia or malignancy is not appreciated.

Our state registry requests that this case be abstracted using the histology code 8240/3 because it is a mucosal carcinoid.

AJCC states TIS as being confined w/i basement membrane w/no extension through muscularis mucosae into submucosa. SEER-EOD codes as invasive: mucosa, lamina propria and muscularis mucosae. Our pathologist goes along with AJCC while we are having to code with SEER rules.

1) Assign /3 to mucosal carcinoid, unless stated to be in situ in the final diagnosis. ICD-O-3 is the reference for assigning the behavior code, not AJCC, EOD or CS.

2) The ICD-O-3 code for carcinoid of the sigmoid colon is C187 8240/3. This is reportable to SEER based on the final diagnosis above. Use the histology stated in the final diagnosis.

 2005
20051134 Histology--Lymphoma: How is "histiomonocytic lymphoma" coded?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Assign code 9755 [Histiocytic sarcoma; True histiocytic lymphoma]. "Histiomonocytic" is not standard terminology, according to our expert consultant. However, 9755 is the best code to assign.

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.

 2005
20051003 CS Tumor Size/CS Eval--Breast: How are these fields coded when there is a clinical size recorded but the tumor size is not specified on the pathology report associated with a subsequent resection? See Discussion. 4/8/04 excisional biopsy of 1.5 cm palpable mass. Path: gives a specimen size only and states that there is a nodular firm area that correlates with the clustered microcalcification on radiograph. No pathologic tumor size is given. Would the size be coded to the clinical size of 1.5 cm? The patient did have surgery but the only size available is a clinical one. Because the size is clinical, is the CS Eval field coded to 0 [No surgical resection done. Evaluation based on PE...]?

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.

Clinical size can be coded when the patient has had surgery. For the case above, code the tumor size as 015 [1.5 cm] using the clinical information. The CS Tumor Size/Extent Eval field refers to both tumor size and extension. In this case, record the eval field as 0 or 1 (which ever is appropriate). The tumor size sets the T category unless the resection shows skin or chest wall or dermal lymphatic involvement.

 2005