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: 03/06/2025 21:57 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20020069 Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is "evolving" multiple myeloma reportable to SEER?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:No, it is not SEER reportable. The diagnosis of "evolving" multiple myeloma could represent a plasmacytoma, plasma cell dyscrasia or another lymphoproliferative disorder. Some of these histologies are SEER reportable, but some are not. Additional information would be needed to determine reportability. If you are unable to obtain more information, the case is non-reportable.

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
20021173 Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent a review of slides histology of "in situ squamous cell carcinoma and multiple detached fragments of atypical papillary squamous epithelium; highly suspicious for invasive carcinoma"? See discussion. The original pathologist indicated a final diagnosis of moderately differentiated squamous cell carcinoma. The slides were sent for review to another facility. The reviewing pathologist rendered the diagnosis stated in the question section.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8070 [squamous cell carcinoma].

The review diagnosis was also squamous cell carcinoma. The expression "atypical papillary squamous epithelium" does not modify the cancer histology.

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
20021154

Primary Site: What code is used to represent the primary site for a "teratocarcinoma with features of embryonal carcinoma" removed from the thigh muscle in a patient with x-ray negative testicles? See discussion.

The case was reviewed by AFIP and called "extratesticular." Per our pathology consultant, the site should be coded to unknown because it is very doubtful that the tumor was primary in the soft tissue of the thigh. According to him, such tumors don't originate exclusively in the testes, but tend to occur along the central axis such as the mediastinum or retroperitoneum. If an extratesticular tumor arises in either of these areas, the primary site should be code to the mediastinum or the peritoneum rather than to unknown. Lesions primary in the testicle may also undergo maturation with fibrosis and involution. This process often leaves little evidence of the original tumor in the testis.

Code the Primary Site field to C809 [unknown] for this case. The thigh tumor is a metastatic site.

 2002
20021172 EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: How much information is needed for a head and neck primary in order to code extension to localized versus unknown? What code is used to represent this field when the only information for a buccal cavity primary is a positive aspiration of the buccal mass?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension to 99 [Unknown] for this case until more information is received. The available information does not describe the primary site and there is a complete lack of staging information.

Head and neck cancers spread early and often to nodes. Do not code the EOD-Extension to localized when the information is as limited as it is for this example.

 2002
20021088

Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Vulva/Vagina: SEER Program Code Manual rule #3 on page 11 states "If a new cancer of the same histology is diagnosed in the same site after two months, consider this new cancer a separate primary unless stated to be recurrent or metastatic. Should vulva and vagina be exceptions to rule #3, as are prostate and bladder?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

No. There is no exception for vulva or vagina.

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
20021082

Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Primary site/EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: How many primaries are represented by an invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the floor of mouth with in situ squamous cell carcinoma involvement of the frenulum?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Primary Site field to C04.9 [floor of mouth]. Because the cancer did not INVADE into a neighboring site (through wall, through soft tissue), it just spread along the mucosa (in situ) to involve the frenulum, this is one primary.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, in situ extension via mucosal spread to the frenulum is ignored for purposes of coding EOD-Extension.

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
20021012

EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: How do you code stage and EOD for an extranodal lymphoma with bilateral involvement of a paired site? See discussion.

For example, we frequently see cases of lymphoma occurring in bilateral orbits, or both lungs. This issue was discussed at a 1991 SEER meeting with the tentative answer being that lymphoma involving both organs of a paired site will be coded as stage I (e.g., both eyes or both lungs), as this would be contiguous disease. However, an extranodal lymphoma involving tissue of both limbs (e.g., soft tissue of both arms) will be coded as stage IV because this represents wide areas of involvement that have no connection.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Bilateral involvement of an extralymphatic paired organ is coded as involvement of a single extralymphatic organ or site for lymphomas. The EOD extension code would be at least 11 (Stage IE). Staging lymphomas of any site depends on whether one or more lymph node regions and/or extralymphatic organs are involved, and whether sites on one or both sides of the diaphragm are involved.

 2002
20021159 Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology "mucinous carcinoma with Paget disease"?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8480/3 [mucinous carcinoma]. This answer assumes the patient presented with a single tumor. There is no combination code that includes these two entities. According to the rules for Coding Complex Morphologic Diagnoses, it would appear that the case should be coded to 8540 [Paget disease] because it is the higher code. However, this combination of histologies represents an exception to that rule. The prognosis for mucinous carcinoma is worse than the prognosis for Paget disease. As a result, it would be more appropriate to the histology to mucinous 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.

 2002
20021131 EOD-Extension: If extension/metastasis is found within 4 months of diagnosis, but after first course of cancer-directed therapy has ended, should that involvement be excluded when coding the EOD-extension field? See discussion. Example: Spinal drop metastasis was diagnosed within 4 months of the initial diagnosis of a localized astrocytoma, but after treatment with surgery and XRT was completed.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Do not include the spinal metastasis because it was diagnosed after the extent of disease was established. If metastasis was not present at diagnosis, and not discovered during the original metastatic work-up, it is progression of disease.

 2002
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