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: 02/19/2026 15:51 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20051066

CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: Explain the difference among SSF4 prostate codes 150 [No clinical involvement of prostatic apex & prostatectomy apex extension unknown], 510 [Clinical involvement of prostatic apex unknown & No prostatectomy apex extension], and 550 [Clinical involvement of prostatic apex unknown & prostatectomy apex extension unknown].

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.Site Specific Factor 4 captures the status of clinical apex involvement and prostatectomy apex involvement. The first digit in codes 110-550 indicates the clinical status of apex involvement. The second digit indicates apex involvement found at prostatectomy. The third digit is always zero. For both first and second digits, the codes and definitions are the same:

1 - No involvement of prostatic apex

2 - Into prostatic apex/arising in prostatic apex, NOS

3 - Arising into prostatic apex

4 - Extension into prostatic apex

5 - Apex extension unknown

Code 150 = No clinical involvement of prostatic apex & prostatectomy apex extension unknown

Code 510 = Clinical involvement of prostatic apex unknown & No prostatectomy apex extension

Code 550 = Clinical involvement of prostatic apex unknown & prostatectomy apex extension unknown

 2005
20051089 2004 SEER Manual Errata/Grade--Breast: Are the codes on page 94 of the SEER manual's Breast Grading Conversion Table requiring conversion of nuclear grades 1/3 and 1/2 to code 1, 2/3 to code 2, and 2/2 and 3/3 to code 3 correct or are the codes on page C-473 in the Three-Grade System (Nuclear Grade) for breast correct that requires conversion of the same examples to codes 2, 3, and 4 respectively? On page C-473: Delete the section titled "Three-Grade System (Nuclear Grade)" and delete the table. Use the tables on pages 94 and C-472 to code grade for breast cancer. This correction will be made in the next errata. 2005
20051032 Reportability/Behavior--Brain and CNS: How is a brain "neoplasm" diagnosed only by CT scan reported to SEER? See Discussion. We have a significant number of patients who come into our emergency room and are diagnosed with a brain neoplasm by CT scan. They are transferred to another facility for further care. Some of those facilities will give us information - histology, treatment, etc. Some will not. How are we supposed to report these brain neoplasms if we don't know if they are benign or malignant? Can we report them as behavior code 9 or do we just report them as benign if we can't get any further information? The case above is reportable and 8000/1 is the most appropriate histology/behavior code. A clinical diagnosis alone from diagnostic imaging reporting a brain 'neoplasm' (with a diagnosis date supporting the reportable case requirements) even with no other information available (from biopsy or resection) is reportable. Care should be taken when reviewing terms used by the radiologist on these reports, since some tumors exhibit defining characteristics that can be picked up on diagnostic imaging. 2005
20061119 Reportability--Breast: Is a biopsy proven squamous cell carcinoma of the breast nipple reportable if a subsequent areolar resection shows foreign body granulomatous reaction to suture material and no evidence of residual malignancy in the nipple epidermis? Yes, this case is reportable. The primary site is C500 [nipple]. There was a diagnosis of malignancy on 2/15/06: "Positive for malignancy." Even though no residual malignancy was found in the later specimen, that does not disprove the malignancy diagnosed on 2/15/06. 2006
20061034 Primary Site--Unknown & ill-defined site: Is the primary site code C809 [Unknown primary site] preferred over the use of a site code for an organ system (e.g., biliary tract, NOS) or a specific primary site (e.g., colon, NOS) when these are "favored" but other potential sites "cannot be excluded"? See Discussion.

Case 1 - CT: Mult pulm nodules, bilat pleural effusions; paraaortic, paracaval, celiac lymphadenopathy. Lytic lesions L4&L5.

Bx L3: Met pd adenoca. Based on the histopathologic features and the results of the immunostains, cholangiocarcinoma is regarded as the most likely primary. However, other possible primaries include pancreas, stomach, and (remotely) lung.

Should primary be coded as C26.9, digestive organ, NOS?

Case 2 - CT: Mult liver masses. Liver Bx: Mod diff adenoca. The most likely primary sites include cholangiocarcinoma, stomach and pancreas.

FDx per attending: Met adenocarcinoma to the liver, probably biliary origin.

What primary site code do we use?

Case 3 - Admitting Dx: Unknown primary with mets to lungs, liver and cerebellar area. Liver Bx: Met adenoca. The combination of morphological and immunohistochemical staining favor a colon primary. However other possibilities include cholangiocarcinoma and pancreatic ca.

Should we code site as C18.9 or C26.9?

Code the primary site according to the physician's opinion. An ill-defined site code or an NOS code for the organ system is preferred over C809 [Unknown primary site] whenever possible. Code C809 only when there is not enough information to use an ill-defined or NOS code.

Case 1 and Case 2 - Assign code C249 [Biliary tract, NOS]. Based on the available information, the physicians believe these are most likely biliary primaries.

Case 3 - Assign code C189 [Colon]. According to the available information, the physician believes this is most likely a colon primary.

 2006
20061088

CS Extension--Lymphoma: If bilateral tonsils are involved with lymphoma, is it one or two regions of involvement and how is extension coded?

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 cases diagnosed 1-1-08 and later: Assign CS extension code 10 [involvement of a single lymph node region]. Bilateral tonsils are one organ/site.

See Note 1 under CS Extension. Tonsil is coded the same as a lymph node region.

 2006
20061085 Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: Is histology coded from the more representative specimen or should the combination code 8522/3 [Infiltrating duct and lobular carcinoma] be used for a case in which a right breast mass needle core biopsy revealed infiltrating ductal ca, grade III and the subsequent right mastectomy revealed a 2.3 cm lobular carcinoma?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the histology using the final diagnosis on the pathology report of the procedure that resected the majority of the primary tumor. In this case, the mastectomy removed more of the tumor than the needle biopsy. The final diagnosis from the mastectomy is infiltrating lobular carcinoma. Code histology to 8520/3 [lobular 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.

 2006
20061057 CS Extension--Lung: Can extension be coded to 10 (Tumor confined to one lung) when either an autopsy or a CT scan describes the tumor as a mass of a specified size located in one lobe of the lung without any description of extension and no available TNM provided? See Discussion.

Example 1: Lung primary within the right lower lobe described clinically as greater than 3 cm on scan but was found to be 3 cm at autopsy.

Example 2: CT scan February shows 2 cm mass in RUL.

In both cases, the only tumor description was the size of tumor without any information regarding extension.

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, assign code 10 [Tumor confined to one lung] for a mass in one lobe when none of the descriptions in codes 11 to 80 are documented.

 2006
20061135 Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a "refractory cytopenia with excess blasts" discovered on a bone marrow biopsy reportable?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

Refractory cytopenia with excess blasts (RCEB) is reportable. RCEB is the same disease process as refractory anemia with excess blasts, except there is more than one type of blood cell that is low (red, white, platelets).

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.

 2006
20061005 CS Reg LN Pos/Exam: Are lymph nodes coded as positive or negative when the pathology report for a lymph node dissection performed after radiation and chemo reveals that the nodes are negative but they demonstrated previous involvement by cancer? See Discussion. Scenario: The patient was treated with radiation and chemotherapy prior to resection for esophageal cancer. The pathology report stated, "1/3 nodes c/w treated previous ca."

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.Record lymph nodes that are pathologically confirmed as positive in Regional Nodes Positive. Evidence of previous involvement by cancer is not recorded in this data item.

In the above scenario, the lymph nodes are negative according to pathology.

Clinically positive lymph nodes are coded in CS Lymph Nodes.

 2006