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 16:17 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20130089 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is the histology coded when a pre-treatment core biopsy showed ductal carcinoma, but the mastectomy specimen following neoadjuvant chemotherapy showed lobular carcinoma? See Discussion. 11/06/2012 Ultrasound-guided biopsy of the left breast and left axilla showed invasive ductal carcinoma. The patient underwent 6 months of chemotherapy. In 05/2013 the patient underwent a mastectomy that showed invasive lobular cancer, pleomorphic type, with 11 axillary lymph nodes negative.

The histology is coded to lobular carcinoma, NOS [8520/3] because the mastectomy (the most representative specimen) showed only lobular carcinoma.

The MP/H Rules state to code the histology from the most representative tumor specimen examined. Although this patient underwent neoadjuvant treatment, there is no indication that the ultrasound-guided biopsy contained more tumor than the mastectomy. The mastectomy is the most representative specimen and should be used to code the histology.

2013
20130093 MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: What histology code is used for an adenocarcinoma in situ/bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC) of the lung? See Discussion.

Classification of lung malignancies has undergone a change. The bronchioloalveolar carcinoma histology is being replaced by adenocarcinoma in situ and minimally invasive adenocarcinoma, using an evaluation of lepidic growth pattern in the tumor.

The final diagnosis is "adenocarcinoma in situ/BAC" and the comment states, "The findings in the current biopsy are most compatible with low grade malignant lesions which, in this sample, shows features of adenocarcinoma in situ (former bronchioloalveolar adenocarcinoma), given the proliferation of pneumocytes is limited to the alveolar lining with no evidence of invasion. However, classification of the lesion depends, per reference guidelines (Travis et al. J THOR ONCOL 2011 6,(2):244-275), on its size and its overall histologic features, to rule out the presence of an invasive component and therefore can only be performed upon examination of it in its entirety, upon resection." The radiation oncologist staged this T1N0M0, stage 1 BAC.

Code the histology to 8140/2 [adenocarcinoma in situ, NOS].

The comment for this case is consistent with information from the CAP protocol, which says, "The diagnosis of bronchioloalveolar carcinoma requires exclusion of stromal, vascular, and pleural invasiona requirement that demands the tumor be evaluated histologically in its entirety. It is therefore recommended that a definitive diagnosis of bronchioloalveolar adenocarcinoma not be made on specimens in which the tumor is incompletely represented."

This tumor was not completely resected. Therefore, code to adenocarcinoma in situ based on the information provided.

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
20130095 Grade--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is grade coded for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, NOS? See Discussion. The Heme DB indicates histology code 9811/3 [B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma] is the current histology code to use for the now obsolete term of acute lymphoblastic leukemia [9835/3]. The Heme DB entry for histology code 9835/3 states to "Code grade specified by pathologist. If no grade specified, code 9." The Heme DB entry for the current histology code, 9811/3, states to code the grade to 6 [B-cell]. Should grade be coded to 6 [B-cell] for all cases coded to histology code 9811/3?

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

Code the grade to 6 [B-cell] for all cases of 9811/3 [B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma] per Rule G3 in the Heme Manual.

Acute lymphoblastic leukemia, NOS [9835/3] is an obsolete code and cannot be used for cases diagnosed 2010 and later. The Heme DB indicates the correct histology code is 9811/3 and grade 6 [B-cell] for cases diagnosed 2010 and later.

For cases of acute lymphoblastic lymphoma, NOS [9835/3] diagnosed prior to 2010, use the pathology report information to code the grade. Code the grade as 9 [unknown] if the pathology report does not specify the grade.

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
20130057 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded if the bone marrow biopsy favors lymphoplasmacytoid lymphoma and the physician states the diagnosis is lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma-Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia? See Discussion.

Bone marrow biopsy: Focal bone marrow involvement with B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder. Comment: This patient has 2 monoclonal proteins in serum, IgM kappa and IgG kappa clones. The marrow does have focal involvement with a small cell lymphoproliferative disorder. A lymphoplasmacytoid lymphoma is favored.

Flow Cytometry: Bone marrow reveals a low level, kappa-bearing-B-lymphoproliferative population that has an immunophenotype compatible with mantle cell lymphoma or related small, mature non-Hodgkin lymphoproliferative disorder.

Physician statement: lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma-Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia.

Per the Heme DB, the criteria to diagnosis WM is the serum paraprotein IgM. This patient's IgM was 6020 mg/dL. It was described as elevated per the physician. The physician also states the patient's IgG is elevated. According to the Heme DB, when both IgG and IgM are elevated it is indicative of LPL.

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

Code the histology to 9671/3 [lymphoplasmactyic lymphoma (LPL)] per the Heme DB Abstractor Notes and Rule PH17. When IgG and IgM are elevated, code to lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia is caused by increased lymphocytes which causes an increase in IgM. LPL has mixed abnormalities, both the lymphocytes and plasma cells are increased which results in an abnormally high IgM and IgG.

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
20130177 MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: What rule and histology code apply when a TURB final diagnosis is small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma and high grade urothelial carcinoma? See Discussion.

The patient has a 6 cm tumor arising in posterior-lateral bladder extending to prostate, obliterates seminal vesicle, and invades pelvic wall.

TURB final diagnosis: Small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. High grade urothelial carcinoma involves 10% of tumor.

Following the current MP/H single tumor rules, it appears Rule H8 applies. Per Rule H8, code the numerically higher code of 8120. By following this rule, it does not seem the histology code fairly represents this tumor.

There is currently no rule in the urinary site MP/H Rules for this combination of histologies. The best option is to code the histology to 8045/3 [mixed small cell carcinoma], a combination of small cell with other types of carcinoma. The presence of small cell carcinoma drives the treatment decisions for this case.

This issue will be addressed in the next revision of the MP/H Rules.

2013
20130072

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries are accessioned when the right lower lobe lung has two adenocarcinomas, both with lepidic pattern, if the tumor board staged these tumors as separate primaries? See Discussion.

Per pathology report

  • Lung, right lower lobe, wedge excision (A): Invasive moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma with focal lepidic pattern (pT1a, pN0).
  • Right lower lobe, completion lobectomy (F): Separate focus of well differentiated adenocarcinoma with lepidic pattern (<4mm) (see comment).
  • COMMENT: The block F7 shows a microscopic focus of adenocarcinoma with lepidic growth pattern. This most likely represents a separate primary tumor since the stapled margins were all negative for involvement. This focus measures less than 0.4 cm.
  • Tumor focality: Most likely two separate primary tumor nodules. Histologic type: adenocarcinoma, mixed type (NOS and lepidic type).

The tumor board has staged this as two separate primaries and is treating it as such. They are not considering the second focus metastatic even though it is the same histology. Lepidic is not in the ICD-O-3. Is lepidic a new term for histology?

For cases diagnosed 2007 and later, accession a single primary, adenocarcinoma [8140/3] of the right lower lobe lung. The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Step 1: Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). Go to the Lung MP rules because site specific rules have been developed for this primary.

Step 2: Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. Stop at rule M12. Accession a single primary when the patient has two tumors in the same lung with the same histology.

Keep in mind that physicians follow different "rules" to determine the number of primaries. Even though the physicians consider this case to represent two primaries, the MP/H rules instruct you to accession one primary.

We have received quite a few questions about the term lepidic. Below is the general definition of lepidic that will be added to the next MP/H revision.

"Lepidic" is a growth pattern meaning that tumor cells are growing along the alveolar septa. It is characteristic of bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC), but not diagnostic of it. The diagnosis of BAC also requires no stromal, vascular, or pleural invasion. Lepidic growth may be seen in other adenocarcinomas, including metastases to lung from other sites. It is not a type/subtype of adenocarcinoma. For lepidic lung neoplasms, code the histology indicated, for example BAC.

 2013
20130221 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Prostate: How many primaries are accessioned for a diagnosis of metastatic small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the prostate following a previous diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the prostate? See Discussion.

Would a second prostate primary with histology coded to 8041/3 [small cell carcinoma] be accessioned for the following examples? Or are these metastases despite the different histologies?

Example 1: Prostate adenocarcinoma diagnosed in 2001, no treatment given. Metastatic small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma diagnosed 03/2012 on liver biopsy with a physician's statement in 4/2012 that the prostate is likely the cause of the metastasis to the liver.

Example 2: Prostate adenocarcinoma diagnosed in 2006, treated with TURP. Bone marrow biopsy in 5/2012 shows involvement by metastatic small cell carcinoma with morphologic and immunophenotypic features that argue against prostatic adenocarcinoma. The oncologist assessment states, "The patient has Stage 4 small cell carcinoma of the prostate and the bone marrow biopsy path shows metastatic small cell carcinoma (likely prostate in origin)."

Accession two primaries, adenocarcinoma [8140/3] of the prostate [C619], followed by small cell (neuroendocrine) carcinoma [8041/3] of the prostate [C619] for each of the examples given per Rule M10.

In each case, the second histology (because it is not adenocarcinoma) is a new prostate primary. Small cell carcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma are not adenocarcinomas. As a result they are not covered by Rule M3.

2013
20130027

Reportability--Are well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors and grade 1 neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix now reportable? See Discussion.

The terminology for carcinoid tumors has changed. The current terminology used is "neuroendocrine tumor." Are well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix non-reportable because carcinoid, NOS of the appendix has a borderline behavior code [8240/1]? When the histology/behavior codes for the term "well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" became 8240/3, did SEER intend this change to also apply to appendix primaries? If so, for which diagnosis year did this change go into effect?

Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors and grade 1 neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix are reportable because these tumors have a morphology code 8240/3 per the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Digestive System. However, per the ICD-O-3, carcinoid tumors of the appendix have a behavior code of /1 [borderline].

The terminology of neuroendocrine tumors is evolving and current thinking at the international level is that carcinoid/WD NET of appendix is reportable. However, reportability in the United States is based on ICD-O-3. The histology code for "Carcinoid of appendix" is 8240/1; the histology code for a carcinoids of all other primary sites is 8240/3. Until the United States adopts the proposed changes for ICD-O-3, reportability of appendix cases is as follows:

  • Carcinoid
  • Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor
  • Grade 1 neuroendocrine tumor
  • Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor/carcinoid (Pathologist uses both terms in reporting the diagnosis and does not want to choose one diagnosis over the other.)
 2013
20130125 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is self-healing Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) of the skin reportable?

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

This is a reportable primary. Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) [9751/3] is a reportable neoplasm.

The term "self-healing" means that the neoplasm regressed without treatment. This is a known phenomenon.

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