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: 04/26/2026 03:09 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20180037

Date of Diagnosis--Colon: If a patient has a positive Cologuard test, is the date of diagnosis the date of the cologuard test or the date of the biopsy?

Do not use the date of a positive Cologuard test as the date of diagnosis.

 2018
20180065

Immunotherapy: Is immunotherapy ever palliative treatment according to any oncologists or SEER?

Any treatment that destroys or modifies cancer tissue should be recorded as the appropriate type of treatment -- chemo, immuno, etc. Even if immunotherapy is given for symptoms/palliative treatment, it is likely to kill off tumor cells.

 2018
20180056

2018 SEER Manual/Primary Site--Ovary, Fallopian Tube: How should primary site be coded for a previously diagnosed ovarian cancer which is now being reclassified as fallopian tube? See Discussion.

There is a group of patients diagnosed within the past few years with ovarian cancers who are now enrolled in a clinical trial and are being screened as potential patients for a particular protocol. The screening for these particular cases is being done by a pathologist who has a particular interest in GYN pathology. As the pathologist is screening the cases, there are some which the pathologist is reclassifying as being fallopian tube primaries rather than ovarian primaries. This is apparently due to newly emerging findings and literature. The problem for me is that these cases have been entered into the registry as ovarian primaries, which was correct as of the time of the initial diagnosis. Should the abstracts remain as they were initially coded, since the diagnosis was ovarian cancer at the time they were diagnosed, or should these cases be updated to reflect the current pathologist's interpretation that these are fallopian tube primaries?

Do not change the primary site in this situation. Since the review was done for a clinical trial and the change was not officially made in the patient's medical record, the primary site remains ovary for the cancer registry. Add an explanatory note in a text field for future reference.

 2018
20180101

Histology--Kidney: What is the histology code for renal cell clear cell of the kidney with subsequent epithelioid angiomyolipoma PEComa of the liver stated to be metastatic? Case originaly diagnosed in 2016. See discussion.

This patient was diagnosed in 2016 with renal cell clear cell and was coded to that. In 2018, the patient's liver lesion was resected and pathology revealed epithelioid angiomyolipoma perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa) (8714/3), a new term as of 2018. This was compared to the kidney slides and it was determined to be metastatic PEComa from the kidney. The physician's note states: The patient had a nephrectomy for a kidney tumor in 2016, excision of cutaneous melanomas, and resection of liver mass in 2018. These three cases were sent in consultation. The diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma was confirmed by a dermatopathologist of our department, (a separate report had been already issued). The kidney tumor is poorly differentiated composed of sheets of discohesive cells with markedly pleomorphic cells with frequent giant and bizarre cells. Most of the cells have abundant eosinophilic to clear cytoplasm. The nuclei are enlarged and pleomorphic. Multinucleated cells are numerous. Some cells have markedly enlarged nucleoli. Multifocal tumor necrosis is noted. Extensive lymphovascular invasion is observed. There are foci at the periphery of the tumor consisting of a proliferation of spindle cells with entrapped adipocytes consistent with minor element of unusual angiomyolipoma (see block A18). The liver tumor has histologic features that are similar to the poorly differentiated component of the kidney tumor.

Revise the histology code for the 2016 diagnosis based on the review of slides performed in 2018. When new information becomes available, the information in the abstract can be updated.

PEComa is a synonym for epithelioid angiomyolipoma (8860/1). These tumors can be malignant with local recurrence and or mets. For a pre-2018 diagnosis, code histology to 8860/3 using the ICD-O-3 Rule F, aka: Matrix principle.

 2018
20180095

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: How is histology coded when the term "predominant" is used to describe solid adenocarcinoma, acinar adenocarcinoma, etc.? Pathology reports often say "See Synoptic" (also known as the College of American Pathologists (CAP) protocol) included in the Final Diagnosis rather than including all the detail. Based upon the new Solid Tumor Rules for lung, predominant/predominantly is no longer a subtype/variant and should not be coded unless there is a specific code/subtype-variant for the NOS in Table 3, e.g., adenocarcinoma, lepidic predominant. See Discussion.

Examples

Example #1: CAP histology type: Adenocarcinoma, solid predominant, Final diagnosis states that Adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated, solid predominant (80%) and cribriform (20%) subtype (see lung carcinoma synoptic report)

Example #2: CAP histology type : Invasive adenocarcinoma, solid predominant, Other Subtypes Present (specify subtype(s), may also include percentages): acinar (45%) and micropapillary (5%) Final diagnosis : adenocarcinoma of the lung, please see Synoptic Report

Example #3: CAP histology type: Adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant , Adenocarcinoma, solid predominant Final diagnosis: Adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated, solid predominant (60%), papillary (30%) and acinar (10%) subtype (see lung carcinoma synoptic report)

The lung H rules and tables have been updated to include histologies that CAP identifies using the term "predominant" in the diagnosis. Example: Code adenocarcinoma, lepidic predominant, to 8250/3 rather than 8140/3. When the final pathology diagnosis includes more than one "predominant" adenocarcinoma subtype such as acinar, solid, or lepidic, then code the type with the greatest percentage according to Lung Solid Tumor Rule H7.

 2018
20180096

Reportability/Histology--Small intestine: Is a neuroendocrine microtumor of the duodenum a reportable tumor? See Discussion.

This comment was added to the pathology report by the pathologist: A focus of neuroendocrine microtumor measured 350 micrometers, qualifying as a neuroendocrine microtumor. Focus was immunohistochemically positive for chromogranin and synaptophysin and negative for gastrin. The Ki-67/CD45 immunostain showed <1% positivity in microtumor.

Neuroendocrine microtumor of the duodenum is reportable as 8240/3. "Microtumor" pertains to the size/amount of NET and not to a histologic type.

 2018
20180082

Summary Stage Manual 2018 "Lymphoma: SEER Summary Stage 2000 states: For lymphomas, any mention of lymph nodes is indicative of involvement and is used to determine the number and location of lymph node chains involved (see lymphoma scheme). This statement is not in SEER Summary Stage 2018. Does that mean we follow rules #4-7, pages 14-15, under Code 3: Regional Lymph Nodes only, for every site, including lymphoma?

The following statement "Any mention of the terms including fixed, matted, mass in the hilum, mediastinum, retroperitoneum, and/or mesentery, palpable, enlarged, shotty, lymphadenopathy are all regarded as involvement for lymphomas when determining appropriate code," is included in EOD Primary Tumor and is applicable to Summary Stage 2018.

The statement will be added as note 4 to the Lymphoma Summary Stage chapter. This will be included in the 2019 update (estimated release January 2019).

 2018
20180064

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Recurrence--Breast: Does any recurrence within the multiple primaries-stated timeframe count, not those just in the primary site? See Discussion.

A patient has a left breast cancer diagnosed in 2011; then has a "recurrence" in her lymph nodes in 2017. In 2018, she has a new left breast mass that is the same histology and behavior as the 2011 cancer. Based on the 2017 "recurrence" in the lymph nodes, this is not a new breast primary, is that correct?

This is a single primary using 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rule M11. Rule M8 does not apply because the patient was not clinically disease free for 5 years. We are interpreting the 2017 diagnosis as lymph node metastasis from the 2011 breast cancer diagnosis.

 2018
20180014

Reportability/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumor of the cerebrum reportable, and if so, is the histology coded as 9492/0? See Discussion.

Patient diagnosed with multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumor of the cerebrum. My research shows: Multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumor of the cerebrum is a recently reported benign, mixed glial neuronal lesion that is included in the 2016 updated World Health Organization classification of brain neoplasms as a unique cytoarchitectural pattern of gangliocytoma. There is no code in ICD-O-3 for it, so do I report it and use 9492/0 or not ?

Do not report multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumor of the cerebrum. At this time, WHO is undecided about whether this is a neoplastic or a hamartomatous/malformative process. If WHO makes a determination that this is a neoplastic process, we will update reportability instructions and ICD-O-3 guidelines for registrars.

 2018
20180110

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code of a 2018 lung case whose pathology states adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant?

The Solid Tumor Rules for Lung rule H4 applies. Per Table 3, page 12, third column on adenocarcinoma row, adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant is coded to 8551/3.

 2018