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: 02/12/2026 05:15 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20071101 Multiplicity Counter/CS Tumor Size: The Multiplicity Counter rule 6c states "Use code 99 when the tumor is described as diffuse". Is code 99 used in all circumstances when tumor size is coded to 998? See Discussion. The CS manual lists esophagus, stomach, familila/familial polyposis (colon), lung, and breast as the only circumstances when code 998 is valid. If this is correct, then if TS is coded to 998, then Multiplicity Counter must be 99. If the number of tumors is known, code the number in Multiplicity Counter. If the number of tumors is not known, assign code 99. If "diffuse" is the only information available to describe the tumor, assign code 99. 2007
20071060

Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Esophagus: Is a case with a biopsy diagnosis of "... focal areas suspicious for adenocarcinoma in situ change" reportable if the diagnosis on the partial esophagectomy specimen only includes the phrase "... with foci of high grade dysplasia; no invasive carcinoma identified"?

The case is not reportable.

The biopsy with a suspicious result (suspicious for adenocarcinoma) was disproven by the esophagectomy.

 2007
20071077 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries/Histology--Colon: How many primaries should be reported and how is the histology field(s) coded if the left colon contains two adenocarcinomas and one mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in a villous adenoma and each has a different level of invasion? See Discussion. A patient had three tumors in the left colon including an 1) invasive well differentiated mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in tubulovillous adenoma with pericolonic subserosal fat invasion 8.5cm, 2) An infiltrative moderately differentiated colonic adenocarcinoma with invasion of muscularis propria 4cm and 3) an invasive moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma with invasion of muscularis propria, 1/69 nodes positive. The case was coded using rule M8 for one primary, but M10 contradicts; and H13 coding rule for histology 8263/3.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Assuming that all tumors are in the left colon, there are three tumors:

  • Mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in a villous adenoma

  • Colonic adenocarcinoma

  • Colonic adenocarcinoma

    • Multiple Primary Determination

    In the colon MP rules go to the multiple tumors module. Start with M3. Stop at M7 and abstract as a single primary.

    Histology Code

    Go to the histology coding rules, multiple tumors module, and start with H15. Stop at H20 which tells you to code the most invasive tumor. Tumor 1 is the most invasive according to the definition of most invasive in the 2007 SEER Manual, page C-271. Code 8263/3 [Adenocarcinoma in tubulovillous adenoma].

    		 2007
    		20071116 Behavior--Bladder: What behavior code is used for a TURB path specimen diagnosis of "non-invasive urothelial carcinoma, no muscle found, depth of invasion cannot be assessed" when the clinician stages the case as Ta? See Discussion. The SEER site specific coding module for bladder says, "If the only surgery performed is a TURB and if it is documented that depth of invasion cannot be measured because there is no muscle in the specimen, code the behavior as malignant and not in situ."

    Assign behavior code 2 [in situ] based on the physician's stage Ta.

    When no other information is available and the TNM designation is not available, use the instructions on page C-844 in Appendix C of the 2007 SEER manual as a default.

    		 2007
    		20071072 Ambiguous Terminology/Date of Conclusive Terminology: If there is an unknown date of diagnosis, should the Ambiguous Terminology field always be coded to 9 and the Date of Conclusive Terminology be coded to 99999999? See Discussion. Scenario: Mammogram is suspicious for carcinoma, unknown date in 2007. A biopsy prior to admission to reporting facility is positive for carcinoma. Patient seen at reporting facility in June 2007 for treatment. The purpose of the data item "Ambiguous Terminology" is to flag cases entered into the registry based on a diagnosis with ambiguous terminology. Because the case above was entered into the registry based on conclusive terminology, code Ambiguous Terminology to 0 [Conclusive term] and code Date of Conclusive Terminology to 88888888 [not applicable]. 2007
    		20071098 Multiplicity Counter/Date of Multiple Tumors/CS Tumor Size--Lung: How are these fields to be coded when work-up of a malignancy spans a couple of months and reveals developing nodules? See Discussion. Example: Chest CT on 4-26-07 reveals 2.2 cm mass in lingula, left lung, consistent with lung malignancy. Biopsy on 5-18-07 shows non-small cell carcinoma. PET scan on 6-6-07 shows left upper lobe mass consistent with known non-small cell lung carcinoma. Second developing mass increasing in prominence since 4-07 in periphery of left upper lobe, approximately 3.6 cm which may represent intrapulmonary mets or second primary neoplasm. At least 3 additional intrapulmonary nodules have developed since 4-07, two in the left upper lobe and one in the right upper lobe, suspicious for mets.

    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.Multiplicity Counter/Date of Multiple Tumors

    Apply the multiple primary rules first and record the number of tumors determined to be a single primary in Multiplicity Counter. Record the corresponding date in Date of Multiple Tumors. These data items may be updated once if future tumors are determined to be the same primary as the initial diagnosis.

    CS Tumor Size

    Include information gathered through

  • completion of surgery(ies) in first course of treatment OR

  • all information available within four months of the date of diagnosis in the absence of disease progression

    • WHICHEVER IS LONGER.

    Metastasis known to have developed after the diagnosis was established should be excluded.

    		 2007
    		20071088 Type of Multiple Tumors--Lung: Is this field coded to 40 [Multiple invasive] or 80 [Unk in situ or invasive] when only one nodule is biopsied of multiple existing nodules for a reported single lung primary? See Discussion.

    The right lung has 4 tumor nodules in the upper lobe. Biopsy of one tumor is positive for moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma. No other work up performed.

    Should code 40 be used because we dont know the behavior of the other nodules?

    		 The best code to use in this case is 40 [multiple invasive]. For lung only, it is assumed that all of the tumors are the same histology and that all are invasive. 2007
    		20071124 Multiplicity Counter-Breast: The general instructions say to ignore separate microscopic foci when determining when to use the single tumor or multiple tumor modules. Do these instructions apply if sizes are given for the foci? See Discussion. For instance, would a 1.2 cm breast tumor with 3 scattered microscopic foci ranging from 2-4 mm be treated as multiple tumors (4), or as a single tumor? If the microscopic foci are measured and listed as part of the diagnosis, they should be counted as multiple tumors. 2007
    		20071071

    MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: If the biopsy for a lung primary is actually taken from a pleural mass, can the default rule "when there are several lung masses and only one lesion is biopsied, consider this a single primary" apply? See Discussion.

    Scenario: A parenchymal lesion in each lung. One lung also has a pleural lesion. MD biopsies the pleural mass only and it is positive for cancer.

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    Do not assume the biopsy of the pleural mass is a biopsy of the lung. Apply the 2007 MP/H Lung rules to the lung tumors only. For this case, the pleural lesion would be a metastasis (outside the lung). The 2007 MP/H rules do not apply to metastatic lesions.

    The 2007 MP/H Lung rules do not apply to pleura as a primary site. If the pleural lesion is primary, it should be abstracted as a separate primary.

    		 2007
    		20071123

    MP/H Rules/Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Colon: Please clarify how to code diagnostic confirmation when there is no mention of a malignant polyp in the pathology report of a familial polyposis case given this statement: "Even if you have only one malignant polyp it is a single primary if there is a diagnosis of FAP. Even if there is no mention of a malignant polyp, if there is a diagnosis of FAP you will use this rule."

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    In the very unlikely event of a FAP diagnosis with no malignancy, the case would not be reportable.

    When FAP is diagnosed along with a colon malignancy, it is presumed that the malignancy originated in one of the numerous polyps, even if this is not explicitly stated. Use rule M3 for any colon malignancy (in a polyp, frank, or not stated) with a diagnosis of FAP and abstract as a single primary.

    		2007