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 00:40 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021184 EOD-Lymph Nodes--Head & Neck: When a physician provides only "Stage IV" (i.e., an abbreviated stage) for a right posterior tongue primary with lateral extension into the oropharynx and hypopharynx, can you assume "palpable" level 2, 3 and 5 lymph nodes are involved?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 9 [Unknown], based on the information provided.

The physician's statement of an N category from a TNM may be used to determine lymph node involvement in the absence of other information. However, you cannot assume nodal involvement based on the incomplete staging information of "Stage IV" for a base of tongue primary. For this primary site, extension into the hypopharynx from this primary is equivalent to T4/Stage IV. Therefore you cannot assume the clinician's assessment of the case as Stage IV represents his assessment of lymph node involvement.

 2002
20021015 Ambiguous Terminology/Reportability: How should the expressions "suspicious for but not diagnostic of" and "suspicious for the possibility of early invasive adenocarcinoma" be interpreted for reportability? Would the interpretation be different depending on the primary site?

For reportability, interpret "suspicious for but not diagnostic of" as NOT diagnostic of cancer.

The phrase "suspicious for the possibility of early invasive adenocarcinoma" may indicate that the case is in situ. If no further information is available, this is not reportable.

The site of the cancer diagnosis does not change the interpretation.

 2002
20021061 Multiple Primaries/Histology--Mycosis Fungoides/Cutaneous T cell Lymphoma: Physicians often use the terms cutaneous T cell lymphoma (CTCL) and mycosis fungoides interchangeably and yet the SEER Single versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table indicates that these 2 diagnoses represent separate primaries. Do these cases represent one primary? If so, what histologic type should they be coded to?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:The patient does not have two different malignancies. Code the Histology field to 9700/3 [mycosis fungoides], the specific type of cutaneous T cell lymphoma. Mycosis fungoides is one of several types of cutaneous T cell lymphoma. Physicians often refer to mycosis fungoides by the "umbrella term" cutaneous T cell lymphoma.

The table indicates that the broad category of "T/NK-cell NHL" (which includes CTCL) and mycosis fungoides are presumably separate primaries because several entities are included in that broad category. In the specific case cited above, one entity (CTCL) within the broad category (T/NK-cell NHL) and mycosis fungoides are not separate primaries.

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
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
20021189

Multiple Primaries--Lymphoma: How many primaries should be reported when a 5/99 diagnosis of stage III follicular large cell lymphoma [9698/3] of the conjunctiva [C69.0] is followed with a 6/01 diagnosis of small cleaved lymphoma [9591/3] of the breast [C50.9]? See discussion.

The Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases folding table states that this should be one primary, but is this true when they are both extralymphatic in origin?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Report as two primaries if that reflects the medical opinion for this case. The table is a guide, but does not overrule the clinician's opinion. These extranodal lymphomas are diagnosed in two different sites more than 2 months apart. They are listed as the same primary in the folding table because 9591/3 is generally a non-specific term and 9698/3 is a more specific cell type. If both histologies were diagnosed in the same organ or tissue, this is the same primary. However, the primary sites in this example are distinctly different.

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
20021132

EOD-Extension: The medical record lacks a clear statement that metastatic workup was complete. A metastatic deposit is identified within 4 months of diagnosis and while the patient is undergoing first course of treatment. How do you code the EOD-Extension field?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

In coding the EOD-Extension field, ignore metastasis that is discovered after the initial workup is completed regardless of the timeframe from diagnosis date until the date the metastatic deposit was discovered. The metastasis is progression of disease.

Any of the following represents progression of disease. Do not code the subsequently identified metastatic involvement in the EOD:

1) The metastatic workup was complete and treatment started before the procedure was done that found the metastatic involvement.

2) A procedure, such as a scan, was negative initially and a repeat of that procedure is now positive.

3) The treatment plan is developed for a localized disease process.

If you are unable to determine whether the newly discovered metastasis represents progression or is part of the initial workup, regard the metastasis as progression. Do not code the metastasis in the EOD-Extension field.

 2002
20021007 Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery: If a named regional lymph node is aspirated should this field be coded to 1 [Regional lymph node removed, NOS], as is stated on page 127 of the SEER Program Code Manual, or should this field be coded to a more specific code when that is available (e.g. Lung primary code 3 [Ipsilateral mediastinal and/or subcarinal nodes])? For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: A generic scheme was created for the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field. As a result, there no longer are codes available that represent specific named lymph node chains. Code aspiration of a lymph node to 1 [Biopsy or aspiration of regional lymph node, NOS]. 2002
20021185 Surgery of Primary Site--Major salivary gland: How do you code Surgery of Primary Site for a submandibular gland primary when the operative report refers only to an excision of the submandibular "tumor" while the pathology report states the submandibular "gland" was removed? See discussion. The gross description on the pathology report indicates that the specimen consists of a "submandibular gland." A further description on the pathology report included, "the specimen was sectioned exposing a focally cystic mass that nearly replaces the entire specimen." For cases diagnosed on 1/1/2003 or after: Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 40 [Total parotidectomy, NOS; total removal of major salivary gland, NOS], per the pathology report's gross description of the specimen unless the operative report description of procedure indicates that the removal was less than total. 2002
20021213 Reportability/Behavior Code--Bone Marrow: Is T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukemia SEER reportable? Pages 102, 147, 156, 160-162 and 167 of the ICD-O-3 list it as 9831/1, but on page 17 this is listed as 9831/3.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukemia [9831] is a very indolent form of leukemia. It was assigned a behavior code of 1 by the editors of ICD-O-3 (as noted on pages 102, 147, 156 160-162, and 167 of the ICD-O-3 manual). The table on page 17 is the World Health Organization list of hematopoietic and lymphoid tumors. WHO recognizes TCLGLL as a malignancy. The disease is infrequently symptomatic enough to be diagnosed. However, when any of the terms listed with code 9831 are described as malignant or aggressive, report to SEER as a malignancy with a behavior code of /3.

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
20020024 Reportability--Cervix: The SEER Program Code Manual lists CIN III and carcinoma in situ of the cervix as not being reportable for cases diagnosed in 1996 or later, but does not list "adenocarcinoma in situ" or "squamous cell carcinoma in situ." Are these histologies still reportable?

For primary site cervix uteri, only histologies with behavior codes of 3 [invasive] are reportable to SEER for all registries.

Some SEER registries have opted to continue to collect behavior codes of 2 [in situ] for cervix uteri primaries.

 2002