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: 11/16/2025 02:18 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20091113 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded when a nipple biopsy shows Paget disease but the mastectomy specimen shows only infiltrating ductal carcinoma in the breast tissue and the nipple is negative for Paget disease? See Discussion. Biopsy of nipple showed Paget disease. Subsequent mastectomy showed two tumors proven to be infiltrating ductal carcinoma. Nipple is negative. Per MP/H rule M9, this is all counted as a single primary. Do we code histology from the most representative specimen and lose the information about the Paget disease? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology 8541/3 [Paget disease and infiltrating duct carcinoma]. Paget disease of the nipple and infiltrating duct are separate tumors. For each tumor, take the histology from the most representative specimen. The biopsy is the most representative specimen for the Paget disease. The mastectomy is the most representative specimen for the infiltrating duct. According to the multiple primary rules, tumors that are Paget disease and duct are a single primary (M9). According to the histology rules, assign code 8541/3 (H26). 2009
20091112 Grade-Breast: How is this field coded for a breast tumor described as "intermediate nuclear grade"? See Discussion.

Guidelines for selecting grade for breast primaries prioritize nuclear grade right after B&R grade. The conversion table displays only numeric values for nuclear grade. How is grade coded for tumors in which nuclear grade is described by terminology? Does it make a difference if the tumor is invasive or in situ?

Example 1: Ductal carcinoma, intermediate nuclear grade.

Example 2: Ductal carcinoma, high nuclear grade.

Example 3: Ductal carcinoma, moderate nuclear grade.

Example 4: DCIS, intermediate nuclear grade.

Use the table on page C-607 of the 2007 SEER manual. The terms "low," "intermediate," and "high" appear in the column labeled "BR Grade." Use this column to determine the appropriate grade code when grade is described using these terms. If the grade of an in situ tumor is described using these terms, use the table to determine the appropriate code for the grade field. 2009
20091111 Grade--Breast: How is this field coded for an "invasive ductal carcinoma, well differentiated, low nuclear grade"? Assign code 1 [Grade 1, well differentiated]. Use the table in the 2007 SEER Manual on page C-607. Both "low grade" and "well differentiated" are coded 1 in the grade field. 2009
20091110 MP/H Rules--Bladder: Should an invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder diagnosed in 2004 followed by an in situ urothelial carcinoma of the ureter diagnosed in 2008 be reported as multiple primaries per the three-year guideline in Rule M7 or a single primary per the subsite guideline in Rule M8? See Discussion. Rule M7 states, "Tumors diagnosed more than three (3) years apart are multiple primaries." Should this rule be modified to say, "Bladder tumors diagnosed more than three (3) years apart are multiple primaries"? Does Rule M7 apply to only bladder tumors or does this rule apply to tumors in any of the urinary sites similarly to Rule M8 which states, "Urothelial tumors in two or more of the following sites are a single primary: Renal pelvis (C659) Ureter (C669) Bladder (C670-C679) Urethra/prostatic urethra (C680)"?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M7 pertains to renal pelvis, ureter, bladder and other urinary sites as defined by the topography codes listed in the header of these rules.

An invasive urothelial bladder tumor followed more than three years later by an in situ TCC of the ureter are reported separate primaries. Rule M8 applies when the tumors in these sites are diagnosed within three years of each other.

2009
20091109 Surgery of Primary Site - - Esophagus/Stomach/Colon: Is an endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for an esophagus, stomach or colon malignancy coded to 20 [local tumor excision, NOS] or to a more specific code such as 22 [local tumor excision combined with electrocautery]? Assign code 20 [local tumor excision, NOS] for a procedure described as an esophagus stomach or colon endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), NOS. If there is additional information specifying electrocautery, laser or PDT (for example), assign a more specific code. 2009
20091108 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How do we apply the MP/H rules if a pathologist states a patient has multiple reportable primaries after he compares an October 2006 RLL lung specimen with a March 2009 RML lung specimen? See Discussion. Patient had a right lung lobectomy (RLL) in Oct. 2006 diagnosed as adenocarcinoma. In March of 2009, two nodules in the right upper lobe were identified. Following a RUL wedge resection, the pathology report indicated: Two foci of M.D. adenocarcinoma with mixed mucinous and micropapillary and solid patterns. COMMENT: The present tumor is compared to the previous adenocarcinoma reviewed in 2006. Although there is some overlap in their appearance, the present tumor shows a much greater component of mucinous adenocarcinoma. Because there is some difference in the appearance, and the nodule is located in a separate lobe, this will be dictated as a separate lung primary.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is two primaries.

MPH General Instructions tell us a pathologist may decide when there is recurrence when comparing the current tumor to a previous specimen. In this case, the pathologist did the comparison and documented that the second tumor is NOT a recurrence but a new primary.

Histologies described by the terms "pattern" and "component" do not indicate a more specific type when applying the histology rules. The histology for the 2009 diagnosis is adenocarcinoma [8140/3]. Rule H3 applies.

2009
20091107

CS Extension--Lymphoma: Does peripheral blood involvement affect the stage for lymphoma? See Discussion.

2009 Diagnostic Year

Lymph node bx is positive for Mantle Cell lymphoma. Flow cytometry on lymph node tissue shows CD+ pos B cell lymphoproliferative disorder. IHC findings support Mantle Cell lymphoma. Flow cytometry on peripheral blood shows CD+ B cell lymphoproliferative disorder. Because the lymph node is positive for Mantle Cell lymphoma and the flow cytometry findings are the same on the lymph node tissue and peripheral blood, is the peripheral blood involved (Stage IV disease)?

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.No. Peripheral blood is not the same as bone marrow involvement which is what would be required for stage IV.

Lymphomas can arise in lymph nodes which are connected by lymphatic vessels. Both lymphatic vessels and blood vessels travel through lymph nodes and malignant cells can travel between the vessels. Cells in peripheral blood do not prove Stage IV.

 2009
20091106 Multiple Primaries--Urinary: How many primaries should be coded for an 8/9/07 invasive transitional cell carcinoma of right ureter; 7/9/08 non-invasive urothelial carcinoma of bladder; 11/18/08 non-invasive urothelial carcinoma of left ureter; 6/20/09 invasive urothelial carcinoma of left ureter? One primary. This is a good example of how the field effect occurs in the urinary system. From 2007 to 2008, Rule M8 says bladder and ureter tumors are not new primaries and would be documented as recurrences. Because other urinary sites are involved by 11/08 and by 06/09, do not make second primary of left ureter (Rule M4 does not apply). 2009
20091105

Multiple Primaries--Hematopoietic: How many primaries and which histologies should be reported for a case presenting with a 2005 diagnosis of CLL/SLL, 2006 clinical diagnosis of MDS and a 2008 diagnosis of AML? See Discussion.

2005 diagnosis of CLL/SLL (9670) with lymph node involvement, treated with FCR. 2006 clinical diagnosis of MDS secondary to chemo (9987) with CLL/SLL in remission. 2008 biopsy reveals AML (9861). Per Seer Hematopoietic Table, 9987 & 9861 are a single primary. In 6/2008 patient receives bone marrow transplant. 2009 status post BMT, BM biopsy reveals RAEB-1 (9983). Is this still the same disease process or a new primary (since status post BMT)?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Two primaries should be abstracted. Using the Definitions of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies table, compare 9670 (SLL) in 2005 and 9987 (MDS secondary to chemo) in 2006. This is two primaries.

MDS can transform to AML. On the Definitions of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies table, 9987 (MDS) and 9861 (AML) are a single primary. The AML would be documented in follow-up. (While 9670/SLL and 9861/AML are two different primaries, the SLL has already been reported.)

RAEB is a form of MDS. On the Definitions of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies table, 9987 (MDS) and 9983 (RAEB) are a single primary. The RAEB would be documented in follow-up. (While 9670/SLL and 9983/RAEB are two different primaries, the SLL has already been reported.)

For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, 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.

 2009
20091104 MP/H Rules/Histology--Esophagus: How is histology coded for a biopsy of the esophagus with a pathologic diagnosis of "adenocarcinoma, intestinal type" when there is no evidence of a gastric tumor in scans or EDG? See Discussion. There is a rule for colon to disregard "intestinal type" and code to adenocarcinoma (8140) but no rule for esophagus. How should histology for this esophageal case be coded?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Follow MP/H Other Sites Rule H11 and code 8144/3 [Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type]. Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type, is called that because it resembles the normal pattern of adenocarcinoma seen in the large intestines. It is not an indication of the location of the adenocarcinoma. We find that it is not uncommon in the sinuses, stomach, lungs, cervix, and many other organs.

 2009