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: 03/17/2026 22:08 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20190050

Reportability/Melanoma: Is evolving melanoma reportable with a Clark's level and Breslow's thickness are cited in the pathology report? See Discussion.

How do we interpret the reportability of the following: The histological and immunohistochemical findings are most consistent with an early-evolving malignant melanoma, superficial spreading type, with Clark's level II and maximal Breslow thickness 0.33 mm, arising in association with an atypical nevus. Since a Clark's level and Breslow's thickness are included, is this reportable? Is this really an evolving melanoma?

As of 01/01/2021, early or evolving melanoma in situ, or any other early or evolving melanoma, is reportable.

 2019
20190049

Lymph nodes/Melanoma: Is a single axillary lymph node regional or distant for a patient diagnosed in 2018 with metastatic melanoma to the brain found via imaging. The staging procedure was an single axillary lymph node excision that was positive for metastatic melanoma. The exact site of the primary was never determined; the primary site is coded to C449. See Discussion.

The patient was diagnosed in 2018 with met melanoma to the brain found via imaging. The staging procedure was a single axillary lymph node excision which was positive for metastatic melanoma. The exact site of the primary was never determined and the site code is C449. Is the axillary lymph node regional or distant? This affects how I code regional lymph nodes positive, regional lymph nodes examined, and scope of regional lymph node surgery or surgical procedure other site. Similar question was asked in the past (question # 20091101) but I have not found this question restated since the 2018 changes and just want to verify this is still what we are to do.

Lymph node mets from a melanoma of unknown primary site are presumed to be regional if the lymph node mets are confined to one area, as they are in this case. We are assuming there are no previous melanoma diagnoses for this patient. The workup should include examination of the skin areas that drain to the axillary area.

 2019
20190048

Reportability/Histology--Skin: Is malignant hidroacanthoma simplex of the scalp reportable? If so, what is the histology?

Malignant hidroacanthoma simplex of the scalp is reportable. Malignant hidroacanthoma simplex is a synonym for porocarcinoma, 8409/3.

 2019
20190047

Reportability/Liver: If on imaging, there is no statement of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) score but there is reference that a lesion is in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) 5 category, is hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) reportable based on the OPTN 5 classification? See Discussion.

SINQ 20160008 discusses the reportabilty and diagnosis date for liver primaries where imaging references the LI-RADS category as LR-5 or LR-5V. The 2018 SEER Coding and Staging Manual, Appendix E Reportable Example #16, demonstrates this concept. According to the LI-RADS categories a value of 5 is "definitely HCC" and is concordant with OPTN 5. Often we see only the OPTN categorization.

Report HCC based on the OPTN class of 5. OPTN class 5 indicates that a nodule meets radiologic criteria for HCC. Be sure to document in text fields.

 2019
20190046

Tumor Size/Bladder: The 2018 SEER Coding and Staging Manual says to use imaging over physical exam as priority for determining tumor size. If a bladder tumor is 4 cm visualized on cystoscopy, and is 2.8 cm on CT scan, which should be used as the clinical size? Is cystoscopy (endoscopy) a clinical exam or imaging?

For the case described here, use the size from the CT scan. Physical exam includes what can be seen by a clinician either directly or through a scope. A tumor size obtained visually via cystoscopy is part of a physical exam. Therefore, the imaging (CT) tumor size is preferred. Use text fields to describe the details.

 2019
20190045

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple Primaries--Head & Neck: How many primaries are accessioned and what M Rule applies when a patient is diagnosed with a right lateral tongue (C023) tumor in 2016 that was verrucous carcinoma (8051), followed by a new left tongue border (C021) tumor in 2019 that was squamous cell carcinoma, NOS (8070)? See Discussion.

According to the Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules in place at the time of the 2016 diagnosis, verrucous carcinoma was listed as a specific type of squamous carcinoma (Chart 1). However, in the current Solid Tumor Rules, verrucous carcinoma is not listed in Table 4 (Tumors of Oral Cavity and Mobile Tongue) either as a specific histology or as a specific subtype/variant of squamous carcinoma. The only subtype/variant listed for these sites is acantholytic squamous cell carcinoma (8075).

Verrucous carcinoma is not listed in Table 4, making it unclear if it should be a different histology for these specified sites. However, verrucous carcinoma is listed as a specific subtype/variant of squamous carcinoma for other sites (e.g., Table 3).

Accession a single primary based on the 2018 Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rule M13 as none of the other rules apply to the situation.

Not all histology codes are contained in the tables in the Solid Tumor Rules as they list the more common histologies. Verrucous carcinoma is a subtype of squamous cell carcinoma according to Table 3 of the Rules.

Solid Tumor rule tables are based on 4th Ed WHO Blue Books. Verrucous SCC is not included in oral cavity/mobile tongue chapter.

 2019
20190044

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Colon: Is the term phenotype equivalent to type, subtype, variant for the purpose of coding histology? See Discussion.

In our region, pathologists often describe histology using the term phenotype. However, the use of the term phenotype is not discussed in the Solid Tumor Manual.

Example: Final Diagnosis of a colon tumor is invasive adenocarcinoma with a mixed phenotype, and the Diagnosis Comment states: The majority of the disease is poorly differentiated/signet ring cell phenotype.

Would the histology be coded to 8490 (signet ring cell carcinoma), if the majority of the tumor is a more specific histology described by the term phenotype?

While variant, type, and subtype can be used interchangeably according to the Solid Tumor Rules, SINQ 20170058 states that the Multiple Primaries/Histology (now Solid Tumor) Rules do not include coding phenotype. Code as invasive adenocarcinoma NOS (8140).

 2019
20190043

Diagnostic Confirmation: How is Diagnostic Confirmation coded for malignancies diagnosed by a FoundationOne Liquid biopsy/assay involving circulating tumor DNA in blood only? See Discussion.

Example: FoundationAct assay of circulating tumor DNA in blood sample results: Tumor type = non-small cell lung carcinoma, NOS, with 3 genomic alterations identified: NRAS Q61H, IDH2 R140Q and TP53 V172F. The tumor was identified on imaging and the imaging findings were not clearly what one would expect to see with a SCLC.

Code Diagnostic Confirmation as 7, Radiology and other imaging techniques without microscopic confirmation for this case. Results of a FoundationOne Liquid biopsy/assay are not specific enough to diagnose this lung malignancy.

 2019
20190042

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple Primaries--Breast: Is a breast resection showing invasive mucinous carcinoma in a single tumor with associated ductal carcinoma in situ and additional findings of a background of lobular carcinoma in situ single or multiple primaries and which M rule applies? See Discussion

Example: Right breast core biopsy found ductal carcinoma in situ in the upper outer quadrant. Subsequent resection has a final diagnosis of invasive mucinous carcinoma, grade 1, measuring approximately 7 mm, with close margins. See staging summary. Gross description mentions only the primary tumor with associated marker clip from previous biopsy.

Breast Cancer Staging Summary lists (testing and margins removed for brevity):

Procedure type: Lumpectomy.

Specimen laterality: Right.

Tumor size: 7mm.

Histologic type: Invasive mucinous carcinoma.

Histologic grade (Nottingham histologic score): Grade 1, (score 5/9).

Tumor focality: Single focus.

Lymph-vascular invasion: Not identified.

Treatment effect: No known therapy.

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): Present.

Architectural pattern: Cribriform.

Nuclear grade: Grade 1.

Necrosis: Not identified.

Calcifications: Not identified.

Estimated size/extent of DCIS: Spanning an area measuring 15mm.

Pathologic stage: pT1b, pNx. (AJCC 8th ed).

Distant metastasis: Not applicable.

Additional findings: Background lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), flat epithelial atypia (FEA), and atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH).

Apply Breast Solid Tumor Rule M3, abstract a single tumor when there is a single tumor, as there is reference to the primary, single 7 mm tumor. Apply Rule H7 and code the invasive histology only, mucinous carcinoma, when both invasive and in situ components are present. The rules state: Do not use Table 2 Histology Combination Codes for tumors with both invasive and in situ behavior.

 2019
20190041

Reportability/Primary Site--Gastrointestinal (GI) Tract: Is a gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) with a single nodule in the small intestine (C17_) and a nodule in the stomach (C16_) reportable per the 2018 SEER Coding Manual reporting instructions for GIST due to the multiple foci or do the multiple foci need to be in the same organ to be reportable? See Discussion.

Example: Small intestine wedge resection with GIST, 1.8 cm in mid small intestine, single nodule. Stomach nodule biopsy: GIST, 0.3 cm. Pathology report comment section indicates the gastric GIST is not staged due to the small size and incidental nature.

Report the GIST in the small intestine. The 2018 SEER Manual says to report GIST when there are multiple foci and to code the primary site to the site where the malignancy originated. Use text fields to record the details, including the stomach nodule.

 2019