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: 12/22/2025 14:19 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20190106

Tumor Size--Esophagus: Can information from the endoscopy procedure that implies a size of 3 cm for Tumor Size--Clinical be used for Esophagus? See Discussion.

1-28-2018 CT Scan: 2.4 cm mass

2-15-2018 Endoscopy: Mass was present 22 to 25 cm. Biopsies were taken with cold forceps for histology; biopsy positive.

For the case you describe, we would record the clinical tumor size stated on the CT report.

The priority order for clinical tumor size is as follows.

1. Biopsy or operative (surgical exploration) report

2. Imaging

3. Physical exam

We do not recommend coding tumor size based on an inferred tumor size from a description such as "Mass was present 22 to 25 cm." Look for an actual measurement of the mass, or a stated tumor size. Use text fields to record details.

 2019
20190013

Laterality--Head and Neck: Were the topography codes C090 and C091 intentionally left off of the Sites for Which Laterality Codes Must Be Recorded table in the 2018 SEER Manual? The codes were also removed from Table 10 in the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules for Head and Neck but appear under coding instructions 1b. and 6b. in the manual.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. C090 and C091 were intentionally removed from the list of sites for which laterality must be coded. They should have also been removed from coding instructions 1b and 6b. We will make that correction in the next version of the manual.

 2019
20190089

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: Rule H3 of the Solid Tumor Rules was added to capture non-small cell carcinoma modified by ambiguous terminology when the physician confirms the ambiguous term as the histologic diagnosis, also included in Coding Histology instruction 3.B. If differentiation and features are not included in the histology term, does instruction 2 takes precedence? See Discussion.

For example, pathologic diagnosis is non-small cell carcinoma with squamous features. The medical oncologist describes this as squamous cell carcinoma and begins treatment regimen. As I interpret the rules, we would use code 8046, non-small cell carcinoma, because of instruction 2 and the fact that features is not included in the list of ambiguous terminology.

Code 8046 using Coding Instruction 2 that says to: Code the histology described as differentiation or features/features of ONLY when there is a specific ICD-O code for the "NOS with ____ features" or "NOS with ____ differentiation."

Note: Do not code differentiation or features when there is no specific ICD-O code.

In the example, no ambiguous terminology is used. If ambiguous terminology is used indicating a more specific term, you would code to the specific histology.

 2019
20190064

Multiple Primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Patient is diagnosed with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) with an early/evolving acute myeloid leukemia (AML) thought to be treatment related. Does rule M11 apply since there are two biopsies within 21 days, and therefore, two primaries, or one primary (9920/3)? See Discussion.

Patient has a history of breast cancer and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), both treated with chemotherapy and radiation.

On 6/26/19, bone marrow biopsy: MDS with excess blasts-2 (18% dysplastic blasts) in a normocellular marrow (overall 40% cellularity) with trilineage dysplasia. Comment: least myelodysplastic syndrome with excess blasts-2. However, an early/evolving AML cannot be completely excluded. The findings likely represent therapy-related myeloid neoplasm.

MD note on 7/15/19: Diagnosis: MDS, high grade borderline AML with complex karyotype secondary disease. Patient has high grade MDS which is bordering on AML transformation with 20% blasts by IHC and areas higher than this. This is likely secondary to the treatment she has received for her other cancers particularly pelvic radiation for her DLBCL. Given her very high IPSS score, it is likely she will eventually develop AML. No treatment given.

On 7/15/19, bone marrow biopsy: Persistent acute leukemia in a marrow with trilineage dyspoiesis and 23% blasts.

Code as one primary (9920/3). This case does not fit the rules very well, since it is a treatment-related neoplasm and involves a transformation of MDS to AML during the clinical workup. Per the abstractor notes for 9920/3, code 9920/3 when the physician comments that the neoplasm is treatment related. This can be for the MDS or the AML. Use text fields to document that it was first referred to as MDS and then transformed to AML. If you followed the rules strictly and coded this as two primaries (the MDS and AML), you would lose the information that this was treatment related, which is more important.

 2019
20190095

Reportability/Histology--Thymus: Is a thymoma a malignancy if described as having separate tumor nodules within peri-thymic adipose tissue? See Discussion.

Patient had a thymectomy including pericardial fat for a mediastinal mass found incidentally during lung screening. Final diagnosis is WHO B3 thymoma. Staging Summary lists transcapsular invasion: "Present, as separate tumor nodules within peri-thymic adipose tissue." Tumor extension is stated to be "Confined to thymus, including peri-thymic adipose tissue." The pathologist staged this resection as pT1a pNX with no mention of mets. Clinically, there are no noted metastatic sites and no further treatment is planned.

Report this case as a malignant thymoma. Our expert pathologist consultant reviewed this case and in his opinion, the "separate tumor nodules within peri-thymic adipose tissue" fit registry reporting criteria for separate tumor nodules making this a malignant thymoma.

 2019
20190070

Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded for a when the pathologist notes the low grade B-cell lymphoma raises the possibilities of extranodal marginal zone lymphoma of mucosa associated tissue (MALT lymphoma) and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma (LPL)? See Discussion.

Rule PH28 confirms the more specific histologies are ignored if this is truly a low grade B-cell lymphoma (i.e., non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS) since both MALT lymphoma and LPL are more specific types of low grade B-cell lymphomas. This leaves only a diagnosis of low grade B-cell lymphoma with plasmacytic differentiation to consider.

SINQ 20130033 states a low grade B-cell lymphoma with plasmacytic differentiation should be coded as 9680/3 (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)). However, DLBCL is a high grade B-cell lymphoma, not a low grade B-cell lymphoma.

If the pathologist classifies this as a non-specific low grade B-cell lymphoma, and clarifies that this may represent a more specific type of low grade B-cell lymphoma (MALT lymphoma or LPL), should the histology be coded to a high-grade lymphoma (DLBCL) or non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS?

Code low grade B-cell lymphoma with plasmacytic differentiation as 9591/3 (Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS). Plasmacytic differentiation is commonly seen with B-cell neoplasms. If further information identifies a more specific histology, the abstract can be updated to reflect the more specific histology.

In the latest WHO Classification of Tumors of Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues, 4th ed., there is confirmation that DLBCL is a high grade B-cell neoplasm. We will update the SINQ question.

 2019
20190054

Update to current manual/Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Brain and CNS: Table 6 (Non-Malignant CNS Equivalent Terms and Definitions) lists as a subtype/variant of craniopharyngioma 9350/1. This is not a valid histology per the ICD-O-3 or the 2018 ICD-O-3 Update Table. Is this actually supposed to read, ?

Adamantinomatous craniopharyngioma (9351/1) is a subtype of craniopharygioma. We will correct the Non-Malignant CNS Solid Tumor Rules in the next update.

 2019
20190032

Summary Stage 2018--Lung: Are ground-glass lung nodules coded as distant for Summary Stage? See Discussion.

Chest x-ray: Multifocal pneumonia in left lung; possibility of masses in left lung not excluded.

Chest CT: 4 large ground-glass masses in LUL (largest 46mm); beginning of Tree-In-Bud appearance in LUL; 2 small ground-glass nodules in right lung.

Lung LUL biopsy: Adenocarcinoma, Solid Predominant.

No further information as patient did not want to discuss treatment options.

Per the AJCC book and CAnswer Forum, multifocal classification should be applied equally whether the lesions are in the same lobe OR in different ipsilateral lobes OR contralateral lobes, cT2b(m), cN0, cM0.

Do not assume that ground glass presentation is consistent with a neoplasm. There are numerous causes of a ground glass lung condition such as sarcoidosis or pulmonary fibrosis. A ground glass lung opacity may also be observed in conditions such as alveolar proteinosis, desquamative pneumonitis, hypersensitive pneumonitis, and drug-induced or radiation-induced lung disease. If an area of ground glass opacity persists in the lung, it is usually classified as an adenocarcinoma, a classification that ranges from premalignant lesions to invasive disease. This is in line with AJCC that states to stage based on the largest tumor determined to be positive for cancer.

To Summary Stage the case example provided, ignore the lesions in the contralateral lung (do not assume that they are malignant). There are multiple lesions in the left lung, but once again, do not assume that those not biopsied are malignant. This leaves us with the lesion confirmed to be malignant, making this a Localized (code 1) tumor.

 2019
20190021

Sequence Number Central--Brain and CNS: How is Sequence Number--Central coded for current/recent benign brain/CNS tumors when the patient has a history of an additional non-malignant CNS tumor diagnosed prior to 2004 (when these tumors became reportable to SEER)? See Discussion.

We are confused by the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2018 instruction that states: This sequence number counts all tumors that were reportable in the year they were diagnosed even if the tumors occurred before the registry existed or before the registry participated in the SEER Program. Does this rule apply to benign and borderline CNS tumors?

Does this mean that any non-malignant CNS tumor diagnosed prior to 2004 should NOT be included in the sequencing (in the 60s range) if we were collecting non-malignant CNS per our State Registry reporting requirements prior to 2004?

Example: Patient has a March 2017 diagnosis of right sided vestibular schwannoma (C724-1, 9560/0) and a prior history of left sided acoustic neuroma (c724-2, 9560/0) diagnosed in 1991. How should sequence be coded for each primary in our file?

For your example, code the Sequence Number--Central as 61 for the 1991 diagnosis if this was a state registry requirement in 1991 and code 62 for the 2017 diagnosis.

 2019
20190105

Histology--Brain and CNS: What morphology code should be assigned to a low-grade glial/glioneuronal neoplasm? See Discussion.

Pathology Diagnosis: Left temporal lesion - Low grade glial/glioneuronal neoplasm BRAF mutant. Pathologist Comment: The histopathological appearance of this lesion does not allow for a definitive diagnosis. However, the low-grade appearance, fibrillary nature, immunohistochemical profile, and the presence of a BRAF V600E mutation allow this to be categorized as a low-grade glial or possibly glioneuronal tumor. Despite the lack of exact classification this neoplasm can be expected to behave in a very indolent manner consistent with a WHO grade I classification.

Assign 9413/0 for glioneuronal neoplasm.

We consulted with our expert neuropathologist about the histology "glioneuronal neoplasm." This term is relatively new and has not yet been recognized by WHO or assigned an ICD-O code. Until such time that WHO determines a code for this neoplasm, our expert instructed us to use 9413/0. Since this is not a recognized neoplasm it is not included in the solid tumor rules.

 2019