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: 06/16/2026 05:06 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021153 Grade, Differentiation--Breast: Is "histological grade" another way of saying "tubule formation" which would result in the following case having a Bloom-Richardson (BR) score of 7 which would be coded to grade 2? See discussion. Final path diagnosis stated: Invasive ductal ca, histological grade 3/3, nuclear grade 2/3, mitotic index-moderate. Yes. Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 2 [Grade 2] for this case. This case has a BR score of 7 which converts to a grade of 2. This pathologist seems to be describing the three parts of the BR system: tubule formation, mitotic activity and nuclear grade. 2002
20021152 Primary Site: Can we assume the primary site for "chordoma" is soft tissue if the bone is not stated to be involved?

Default the coding of the Primary Site field for chordomas to the bone where the tumor began in the body if the primary site is not clearly stated to be soft tissue. Bone is often the primary site for chordomas.

Based on advice from pathologist consultants: This is one of those situations where we can be quite comfortable with a default, in this case to bone, not soft tissue. Chordoma is a tumor arising in the nucleus pulposis, presumably from remnants of notochord - thus its exclusive origin is in the sacrococcygeal region, spheno-occipital region, and vertebral bodies, otherwise known collectively as the axial skeleton. Any "chordoma" in soft tissue (with no relationship to axial skeleton) is probably a myxoid chondrosarcoma or parachordoma (extremely rare).

 2002
20021151

Reportability: A "gastrointestinal stromal tumor" (GIST) is not always stated to be "malignant" in the path report even though the tumor appears to meet criteria for malignancy. Is the tumor SEER reportable? See discussion.

Evaluation of Malignancy and Prognosis of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Review. Miettinen, M. et al, Human Pathology 2002 May; 33(5) 478-83). This article states there is an increasing number of GISTs because the majority of tumors previously diagnosed as gastrointestinal smooth muscle tumors (leiomyomas, leiomyoblastomas and leiomyosarcomas) are now classified as GISTs. It states that gastrointestinal autonomic nerve tumors (GANTs) are also GISTs based on their KIT positivity and presence of KIT-activating mutations. This article also states that a GIST is probably malignant if it meets the following criteria: 1) Intestinal tumors: Maximum diameter >5 cm or more than 5 mitoses per 50 HPFs. 2) Gastric tumors: Maximum diameter >10 cm or more than 5 mitoses per 50 HPFs.

Some of the path reports that meet these criteria use the word "malignant", and others do not. Some of the cases that are not called "malignant" in the path diagnosis are signed out clinically as "malignant."

The case is reportable if a pathologist or clinician confirms a diagnosis of cancer. If there is no such confirmation, the case is not SEER reportable.

 2002
20021150 SEER Guidelines Over Time: Should we apply the current guidelines to previously missed older cases now being reported to the central registry? See discussion.

1. We receive "straggler" cases for coding that were diagnosed when previous coding schemes and guidelines were applicable. When a specific guideline is in place for a given time period and is later changed in some way, we try to use the specific guideline that was in place at the time of diagnosis when coding the incoming case. However, it is not always possible to remember or to be able to access those old guidelines.

2. There are situations when coding old cases that have no applicable guideline for the older diagnosis years but current SEER documentation informs the coder how to handle the situation. For example, in the SEER Program Code Manual (3rd ed), 3 new guidelines were added for coding of differentiation. There were no guidelines in the previous SEER manual that specifically covered those situations. Should we use the current rules in coding differentiation on the older incoming case?

 Code all fields according to the instructions that were in effect at the time the case was diagnosed. If the old guidelines are unavailable or non-existent, code the case in the current scheme. The year the case was abstracted will indicate that the case was a late entry into the system and that could account for the differences in coding seen by a reviewer. 2002
20021149 EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: In the absence of a clear surgical or pathologic description of how the salivary gland involvement relates to the head and neck primary, do we code the involvement as direct extension, further extension or metastasis? See discussion. A composite resection of tonsillar mass and a modified radical neck dissection is performed. According to the pathology report: Squamous cell carcinoma involvement of tonsil with invasion of skeletal muscle. A separate specimen labeled "tumor" indicates a salivary gland is also involved with tumor. Neck dissection: 1 lymph node with metastasis.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

In the absence of a clear statement that the gland was involved by direct extension, code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [Metastasis]. In this case, the salivary gland tumor was described as a "separate specimen" that contained the salivary gland. The extension does not appear to be contiguous for this case.

If the salivary gland involvement had been by direct extension, which would be assumed if there had been contiguous involvement of the gland with the primary site, then code the EOD-Extension field to 80 [Further extension]. If there had been direct extension, the surgeon probably would not have dissected through the tumor. The resection specimens would have been contiguous.

 2002
20021146 Primary Site--Lymphoma: Is the primary site likely to be extranodal for a lymphoma that presents in an extranodal site and lymph nodes which are regional for that site? Is the primary site also likely to be extranodal if an extranodal site and lymph nodes are excised? See discussion. Example: Work-up included a negative CXR. A CT showed multiple dilated loops of small bowel consistent with obstruction and nodular prominence at the base of bladder. Laparotomy with resection of small bowel and multiple biopsies of enlarged mesentric lymph nodes performed. Final path diagnosis: Lymphoma in a "mesenteric mass" and in "small bowel." There was no mention of lymph nodes in the final diagnosis and the detailed micro described the mesenteric mass as just adipose tissue replaced by lymphoma. However, the gross for that specimen states 4 lymph nodes were found in the fat. The small bowel micro described an ulcerated lesion of the small bowel extending into muscularis.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Primary Site field to C17.9 [small bowel] for the example. When an extranodal organ and that organ's regional nodes are involved, the extranodal site is most likely the primary, unless there is extension from the regional nodes to the organ. If the primary site cannot be determined for a lymphoma diagnosed in both a nodal and extranodal site, code to C77.9 [lymph nodes NOS].

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.

 2002
20021144 EOD-Extension--Colon: What code is used to represent this field for a mid-ascending colon primary that invades through muscularis propria and into subserosal fibroadipose tissue that also presents with a "separate serosal nodule" of carcinoma within cecum that is consistent with a tumor implant (cT3, N0, M1)?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [Metastasis], because the nodule of carcinoma in the cecum is not contiguous with the mid-ascending primary colon tumor.

 2002
20021143 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: Should just one primary be reported when only ductal carcinoma in situ is diagnosed initially but the mastectomy performed as part of the first course of cancer-directed therapy, but more than 2 months after diagnosis, contains a diagnosis of invasive ductal carcinoma? See discussion. How do we code this case in light of the EOD guideline that states we include all information collected within 4 months of diagnosis or through the completion of first surgery in the absence of disease progression when coding.

For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:

Report this case as one invasive primary, unless stated to be two primaries by the clinician. This appears to be a single primary with different behaviors, rather than separate tumors.

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.

 2002
20021142 Date of Diagnosis: If an originally diagnosed "benign" tumor is later discovered to have "metastasized", should the date of diagnosis be back-dated to the date the original tumor was discovered or to the date the metastatic disease was identified? Code the Date of Diagnosis field to the date the malignancy is diagnosed. If there was a medical or pathologic review of the original benign diagnosis that indicates that the patient had cancer at the earlier time, then the earlier date is coded as the date of diagnosis. If no medical or pathologic review of the original benign diagnosis is done, then code the date of diagnosis to the date the metastasis is discovered. 2002
20021141 EOD-Extension--Lung: When only minimal information is available, such as scans and needle biopsies, should EOD extension be coded to localized or unknown? See discussion.

The patient was diagnosed with non-small carcinoma of the lung by needle biopsy of the right upper lobe Feb. 2, 2001. History revealed that CT performed prior to needle bx showed 2 right sided lung lesions and right hilar adenopathy. Chest x-ray following needle bx showed irregular opacity within the RML appears unchanged. Soft tissue prominence in the azygos region, possibly related LN enlargement. This is the only information available.

Should we code extension as 30 [localized, NOS]?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 99 [unknown] if no additional information is available for this case. Because the second lesion in the right lung could be malignant, the extension code might be 77 [separate tumor nodule(s) in different lobe]. With the possibility of a more extensive stage, the status of the hilar lymph nodes is also not clear. The abstracted information is insufficient to stage this case.

 2002