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: 04/22/2026 19:14 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20130187 Reportability: Is a clinically diagnosed Stage III malignant thymoma reportable when the post-neoadjuvant resection showed spindle cell thymoma? See Discussion. A thymoma is described by the medical oncologist at the time of the initial diagnosis as a malignant thymoma, Stage III. The patient had neoadjuvant CAP chemotherapy followed by a resection. Following the resection, the pathologist stated the diagnosis was spindle cell thymoma. A malignant thymoma is reportable. Based on the information provided, a reportable diagnosis (malignant thymoma) was made by a physician and the patient was treated for this diagnosis. Because there is no mention of the initial diagnosis being amended based on the resection specimen's pathology report, assume the initial diagnosis is still valid. 2013
20130170

MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What is the histology code for "invasive carcinoma of the breast, no special type" as the final diagnosis on a pathology report? See Discussion.

Recently pathology reports for breast primaries are no longer listing invasive ductal carcinoma as the histology on many cases if the treating physician calls the cancer an invasive ductal carcinoma. The pathology report (final diagnosis and synopsis) state this is invasive carcinoma, no special type.

Upon inquiry to the pathology department, the response received stated, In 2012, the WHO got rid of ductal carcinoma as a specific type. So what would have been called Invasive ductal carcinoma, Not Otherwise Specified (NOS), is now being called Invasive carcinoma, No Special Type (NST). In the new WHO classification, lobular, tubular, cribriform, mucinous, etc. are the special types. But ductal is gone.

Is this a change in terminology? Should these cases be coded as 8500/3 [ductal carcinoma, NOS] or 8010/3 [carcinoma, NOS]?

Code the histology to ductal carcinoma, NOS [8500/3] for a pathology report with a final diagnosis of "invasive carcinoma, no special type." Do not code the histology to carcinoma, NOS [8010/3].

The 4th Edition of the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Breast refers to invasive ductal carcinoma as invasive carcinoma, no special type. The ICD-O-3 code remains the same as invasive duct carcinoma [8500/3]. The next revision to the MP/H Solid Tumor Rules will clarify this issue.

2013
20130040

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned and what rule applies when a patient has a history of chronic myeloid leukemia diagnosed in 1993 followed by a diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia arising in chronic myelogenous leukemia, blast phase? See Discussion.

12/1993 Bone marrow biopsy: Chronic myeloid leukemia t(9;22) (q34;q11).

09/2011 Bone marrow biopsy: Abnormal cytogenetic & FISH support persistent involvement by chronic myelogenous leukemia.

12/2011 Peripheral blood, flow cytometry: Involvement by acute myeloid leukemia arising in chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML, blast phase, 30% blasts by manual diff.).

Is the 12/2011 diagnosis a new primary? If not, why don't Rules M8-M13 apply when the Heme DB Abstractor Notes section for CML indicates that when there is a chronic, accelerated and blast phase that develops later in the course of the disease, change the histology code to the more specific diagnosis?

 

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

This case should be accessioned as a multiple primary: chronic myelogenous leukemia t(9;22) (q34;q11) [9863/3] diagnosed in 1993 and acute myeloid leukemia [9861/3] diagnosed in 2011 per Rule M15.

Use the diagnosis date to determine the appropriate manual and rules to follow to determine the histologies for this case. To determine the histology of the 1993 diagnosis, use the ICD-O-2. The Heme Manual & DB will be used to determine the number of primaries and the histology of the 2011 diagnosis of AML.

Rules M8-M13 in the Heme Manual cannot be applied to this case because no transformation occurred. CML does not transform to another neoplasm.

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2013
20130010 MP/H Rules/Histology--Skin: How is the histology coded for "infiltrative carcinoma with ductal alterations compatible with squamoid eccrine ductal carcinoma" of the skin?

Code the histology to 8413/3 [eccrine adenocarcinoma]. This is the most specific code available for this diagnosis.

According to our expert pathologist advisor, "The adnexal glands in the skin, sweat (eccrine) glands and apocrine glands, all have ducts which connect the business portion of each gland to the skin surface. Some of the adnexal tumors have features of differentiation which appear to be duct-like, hence the designation 'ductal.'"

In addition, "The 'squamoid' simply indicates some degree of squamous differentiation, but doesn't alter the usefulness of [code 8413/3] because we have no way of coding anything more specific in this case anyway."

2013
20130001

Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are hemangioma, NOS (9120/0), cavernous hemangioma (9121/0) or venous hemangioma (9122/0) reportable when they arise in the brain or CNS?

 

Hemangioma, NOS (9120/0) and cavernous hemangioma (9121/0) arising in the dura and parenchyma of the brain/CNS are reportable.

Venous angiomas (9122/0) are not reportable wherever they arise. The primary site for venous hemangioma arising in the brain is blood vessel (C490). The combination of 9122/0 and C490 is not reportable. This is a venous abnormality. Previously called venous angiomas, these are currently referred to as a developmental venous anomalies (DVA).

2013
20130168 Date of diagnosis--Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is the date of diagnosis coded to the date a bone marrow biopsy revealed "plasma cell neoplasm; plasma cells are < 10%" or the date a diagnosis of myeloma was noted in the Discharge Summary? See Discussion.

Bone marrow biopsy pathology states: Plasma Cell Neoplasm. The plasma cells are < 10%.

Subsequent to the bone marrow biopsy, the Discharge Summary indicated the patient has a diagnosis of myeloma, hypercalcemia and negative bone marrow surveys.

What date is used for the date of diagnosis?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Use the date of the Discharge Summary as the date of diagnosis. In this case, the date of diagnosis is the date the physician confirmed the diagnosis of myeloma using all information available.

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2013
20130186

Grade: Can the FIGO grade be used to code the morphologic grade? See discussion.

FIGO Grade is coded in CS SSF 7 in the Corpus Uteri schema. The SEER Manual does not address using FIGO grade for coding grade in morphology.

Do not use FIGO grade to code the grade field. See the sentence below the table in Instruction #6 in the Grade Coding Instructions for cases diagnosed 2014 and later, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/grade/

2013
20130016 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient is diagnosed with small lymphocytic lymphoma in 1996, received chemotherapy on and off for 15 years due to relapses, and was subsequently diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in 2012?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Per Rule M10, this case should be accessioned as two primaries. According to Rule M10, one is to abstract as multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm AND there is a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis.

The histology for the 1996 chronic neoplasm is coded to 9670/3 [small lymphocytic lymphoma]. The histology for the 2012 acute neoplasm is 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma].

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2013
20130005 Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are spinal schwannomas and neurofibromas reportable or non-reportable? The most accurate and most current instruction is to report these spinal tumors when they arise within the spinal dura or spinal nerve roots, or when they are stated to be "intradural" or "of the nerve root." Do not report these tumors when they arise in the peripheral nerves. The peripheral nerves are the portion of nerve extending beyond the spinal dura. 2013
20130085

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient was treated in 1999 with Vidaza for myelodysplastic syndrome and had a recent biopsy that demonstrated a transformation to acute myeloid leukemia?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

This case should be accessioned as a single primary, acute myeloid leukemia [9861/3].

MDS diagnosed prior to 1/1/2001 is not a reportable disease process. However, because MDS is currently a reportable disease process, it must be considered when trying to determine whether the AML represents a separate primary.

  • If the Heme DB indicates MDS and AML represent different (separate) disease processes, only one primary is reported (i.e., AML) because the 1999 diagnosed MDS is not reportable.
  • If the Heme DB indicates MDS and AML represent the same disease process, then no primaries are reported because MDS was not reportable in 1999.

Rule M2 does not apply to this case because more than one histology is mentioned in the scenario. According to the Heme DB, MDS can transform to AML. Rules M8-M13 apply to cases involving transformation. In this case, Rule M10 applies because the patient was diagnosed with a chronic neoplasm (myelodysplastic syndrome) followed greater than 21 days later by an acute neoplasm (AML).

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

 2013