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: 04/26/2025 00:16 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021036 EOD-Extension--Urinary Tract: Can the rules used to code bladder extension involving the term "no involvement of muscularis/and no mention of subepithelium/submuscosa" be used to code extension for other urinary tract primaries, such as ureter?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

No. The inferred descriptions of noninvasion apply to bladder cases only.

 2002
20000418 Measured Thickness/EOD-Extension--Melanoma: If the Clark's level is not provided, can it be estimated using the depth of invasion provided in the pathology report and associating that number with the Clark's levels identified in the SEER Summary Staging Guide?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

No. Do not use the SEER Summary Stage Guide or any other guide to derive an estimated Clark's level from the thickness identified in the pathology report. The two measurements need to come directly from the pathology report. Each is coded separately in EOD. Thickness is collected in a separate field so we can capture the actual measurement stated in the pathology report. This has made it possible for us to group depth of invasion for analysis purposes in any manner we might wish. In addition, we can always collapse this information to the Summary Stage or TNM using the AJCC rules. AJCC rules use both depth of invasion and thickness in determining pathologic staging, and, if there is an inconsistency between them, the rules say code to the higher T classification, that is, the least favorable finding.

 2000
20021205 EOD-Extension--Melanoma: Is "erosion" synonymous with "ulceration" for melanoma cases?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

No, do not interpret the term "erosion" as a synonym for "ulceration" when coding the EOD-Extension field for melanoma. According to AJCC's melanoma curator, erosion is not necessarily the same as ulceration.

 2002
20000429 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: For breast cancer cases, is code 002 [Mammography/xerography diagnosis only with no size given (tumor not clinically palpable)] to be used only when there is no work-up beyond a clinical one? See discussion.

Usually when a mammogram has a malignant diagnosis, the tumor is clinically palpable, but occasionally the tumor is not palpable.

For example, on the mammogram, lesions are identified in the breast. PE--the breasts are palpably normal. Breast biopsies--two ductal carcinomas, no statement of size. Mastectomy--no residual. Should the size be coded to 999 rather than 002?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

In the case you provided, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 002 [Mammography/xerography diagnosis only with no size given (tumor not clinically palpable)]. A known code in the size field should always take precedence over 999 [Not stated]. Code size from the records in priority order as stated in EOD, from pathology, op report, PE, mammogram, etc. (See EOD for complete instructions.)

Code size as 999 only when there is a clinically palpable lesion with no size stated in the path, PE, or mammogram.

If there is a lesion seen on mammogram that is not clinically palpable, a stated size taken from the path or mammogram would take precedence over code 002; however, if there is no stated size, use code 002 rather than 999.

 2000
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
20021050 EOD-Extension--Pancreas: If the tumor involvement for a case falls between two different regional extension codes, should we code to the lesser of the two codes or should we code extension as unknown? See discussion.

Example 1: CT scan description: Mass in the head of the pancreas. The duodenum is "surrounded" by tumor. Should we code extension to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS] or 99 [unknown] because the extension code could be further than 40. It could be 44 [extension to duodenum].

Example 2: CT scan description: Mass in region of pancreatic head and "root" of superior mesenteric artery consistent with pancreatic cancer. Should we code extension to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS] or 99 [unknown] because the extension code could be further than 40? It could be 54 [extension to major blood vessels].

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

In both examples, code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS]. Choose the lowest of a known possible extension code over an unknown code.

 2002
20021027

EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Should a 2.0 cm ulcerated mass be coded to 020 or 999 for tumor size? See discussion.

With regard to tumor size, how would SEER interpret "2.0 cm ulcerated mass"? Should this be interpreted as an ulcer, or is it a gross description of the appearance of a mass and therefore acceptable to code tumor size to it?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

If this ulcerated mass is pathologically confirmed to be malignant, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 020 [2.0 cm] based on the size of this mass in the absence of a more precise tumor size description.

 2002
20000534 EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: In the SEER EOD manual, there is a list of terms to distinguish apparent from inapparent tumor for prostate primaries. If a physician uses a term not currently on the list or if a physician uses a list in the "maybe" category, should we assume the tumor to be clinically inapparent or clinically apparent tumor?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

If the physician used a term not on the clinically apparent/inapparent list, ignore that term and use the best information available from other sources to code the EOD-Extension field.

If clarifying stage information is missing and the term is in the maybe category or the term is not on the list, then code EOD-Extension as 30 [localized, NOS] for cases that appear localized.

 2000
20010119 Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery/EOD Fields: When a patient has two simultaneously diagnosed primaries, and a regional lymph node dissection intended for one of the primaries removes nodes that are also regional for the other primary, is the information from the lymph node dissection coded for both primaries?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

If the lymph nodes are negative, the status of nodes that are regional for both sites would be used to code the EOD and Site-Specific Surgery fields for both sites.

If any of the lymph nodes are positive use the histology from the lymph nodes to determine how the EOD and Site-Specific Surgery will be coded. For example: If prostate cancer is an incidental finding when a cystoprostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection are done to treat a bladder cancer, and all of the positive lymph nodes reflect the histology of the prostate primary (adenocarcinoma), code the nodes as positive for the prostate primary and negative for the bladder primary.

 2001
20021165 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--All Sites: Is there a hierarchy for using information from clinical tests (scans, radiography) to determine clinical tumor size? When the size on a radiographic report prior to pathologic diagnosis is smaller than the size of the tumor on the radiographic report that is post pathologic diagnosis, which tumor size should be used? See discussion.

Which size should be used for these examples?

1) Tumor size on a mammogram is smaller than the tumor size on an ultrasound.

2) CT of the lung reveals a 2.5 cm RUL malignancy in June. A biopsy in July confirms a malignancy. A CT is done in August prior to initiating RT which reveals a 3.1 cm RUL nodule.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Generally, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to the largest size identified in any scan. Use the largest tumor size for most cases. There is no hierarchy for multiple imaging studies, with the exception of the two situations represented in the question examples.

1). Code the size stated on the mammogram, even if that size is smaller than the one specified on the ultrasound. Generally the mammogram size is more accurate for breast cases than ultrasound.

2). Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 2.5 cm. In this example, the second scan was the same type as the first. Usually there is not that much of a difference in size between the same tests, unless the tumor has an aggressive histology. The example does not mention the histology. With certain histologies, such as small cell of the lung, a rapid growth in a short amount of time is the normal process. The fact that the size increased that much in a short period of time, using the same type of scan, is an indication of a rapidly growing tumor. It would be better to use the size on the initial scan to code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor.

 2002