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: 03/01/2026 20:45 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20160061

Reportability/Behavior--Small intestine: Is a carcinoid tumor, described as benign, reportable? See Discussion.

 

A segmental resection pathology report states "benign mucosal endocrine proliferation consistent with a 0.3 cm duodenal carcinoid tumor." The diagnosis comment further states, "the separate small endocrine lesion is histologically benign, consistent with a 3 mm carcinoid tumor." This seems to be an example of a description of a microcarcinoid tumor referenced in SINQ 20160011. However, in this new case the pathologist specifically states the tumor is benign.

The WHO definition of microcarcinoid indicates this is a precursor lesion, which seems to indicate it is not malignant. However, SEER's previous answer stated we should report these tumors because the ICD-O-3 definition of carcinoid is 8240/3. Do you think that the mention of the term "benign" in the pathology report is actually related to the size of this lesion? Is the reference to benign mucosal endocrine proliferation referring to the WHO classification (making the case reportable as stated in SINQ 20160011), or is this a situation in which we should apply the Matrix Rule and the case is nonreportable?

This carcinoid tumor, described as benign, is not reportable. According to our expert pathologist consultant, this case is not reportable because the pathologist uses "benign" to describe the mucosal endocrine proliferation and based on that, the neuroendocrine cell proliferation is hyperplasia/benign - not reportable.

2016
20160070

Primary site/MP/H Rules/Histology: What is the appropriate site and histology code for a tumor described as a "Large mass In suprasellar cistern encroaching into sphenoid & ethmoid sinuses", with the pathology described as "INI-1 deficient sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma"? Of note, this patient has a history of a pituitary adenoma, resected overseas a few months prior to this diagnosis.

The primary site is unclear. The lesion is intracranial, but this may not be the primary site. In the absence of any additional information, assign C390, 8020/3. According to WHO, sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma can involve the nasal cavity, maxillary antrum, and/or ethmoid sinus.

SMARCB1 (INI-1) is a tumor-suppressor gene located on chromosome 22q11.2. Tumors that showed loss of expression were SMARCB1-deficient tumors which are characterized by nests, sheets, and cords of cells without any histologic evidence of specific (eg, squamous or glandular) differentiation.

2016
20160004

First course treatment/Other therapy: How is Sirolimus (Rapamycin) to be coded when given with known chemotherapy agents in a clinical trial? See discussion.

The SEER*Rx Database lists Sirolimus as an ancillary agent under the Category section, but as an mTOR inhibitor under the Subcategory. The Remarks section indicates Sirolimus (AKA Rapamycin) is an immunosuppressant, but is also a type of serine/threonine kinase inhibitor. Other types of kinase inhibitors (including Temsirolimus) are types of Chemotherapy. Although the Coding section states this drug should not be coded, Primary Sites (NSCLC and glioblastoma) are listed for this drug.

The SEER*Rx Database page for this drug is confusing. Please address the following.

1) Should Sirolimus not be coded when it is being given as a kinase inhibitor or an immunosuppressant?

2) If Sirolimus is ever treatment, should it be coded only for the primary sites listed?

3) If Sirolimus is given as part of a non-blind clinical trial for another site other than NSCLC or glioblastoma, should the Other Therapy field be coded to 2 [experimental - other treatment]?

Sirolimus is used to treat GVHD (graft versus host disease) and is not coded as treatment. Even though the sub-category is mTOR inhibitor it does not automatically mean it is a chemotherapeutic agent. Sirolimus affects cells differently than Temsirolimus.  The chemical compounds differ between these drugs. In order to code rapamycin, the drug given must be stated to be either the analog or ester compound.  The SEER*RX database has been corrected and NSCLC/glioblastoma are no longer listed for sirolimus.

 We researched clinical trials and found several that include sirolimus with other chemotherapy drugs for patients who either have received or will be receiving bone marrow transplants for hematologic diseases. In this case it is not coded. There are a few trials that are looking at sirolimus as a treatment for bladder, prostate, nerve sheath tumors, MDS, and AML. For these cases it would be coded in Other (code 2).

 2016
20160002

MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Which is the correct histology code to use and which MP/H rule applies in the case of a single lumpectomy specimen that demonstrates two separate tumors with the following histologies.

1) Invasive lobular carcinoma

2) Invasive ductal carcinoma with tubular features

See discussion.

Does ductal carcinoma with tubular features qualify for Breast MP/H Rule H28? Or, is it more appropriate to strictly follow Table 2 (not a type of ductal tumor) and apply Rule H29, thus losing the lobular component?

Abstract a single primary using Rule M13. Assign 8523/3 using rule H29. The code for  invasive ductal carcinoma with tubular features (8523/3) is higher than the code for invasive lobular carcinoma (8520/3). H28 does not apply because 8523/3 is not included as a type of duct carcinoma on Table 2.

2016
20160055

Reportability--Bone: Is an "atypical cartilaginous tumor" reportable? See Discussion.

Patient had a core needle biopsy of the right acetabulum. Final diagnosis on the path report is: Atypical cartilaginous tumor (formerly chondrosarcoma, grade 1).

Is this cell type reportable? If so, is it reportable only because the pathologist recorded clarifying text in parentheses? If the text in the parentheses was not available, is the histology "atypical cartilaginous tumor" reportable?

Atypical cartilaginous tumor of bone is not reportable. The WHO terminology is "atypical cartilagenous tumor/chondrosarcoma grade I." WHO classifies this entity as low malignant potential (behavior code /1).

Chondrosarcoma grade II or grade III is reportable based on the WHO classification of malignant (behavior code /3).

2016
20160075

MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What histology code(s) and MP/H rule applies for a breast resection final diagnosis of "undifferentiated sarcoma associated with a malignant phyllodes tumor and a tumor size of approximately 7 x 6.5 x 4 cm"? (The tumor is primarily sarcoma, with the phyllodes tumor measuring 2.8 cm)? See Discussion.

Patient has a diagnosis of undifferentiated sarcoma with an associated malignant phyllodes tumor in a single mass. Should this be abstracted as two primaries, one for an undifferentiated sarcoma and the other for a malignant phyllodes tumor? Which MP/H rule applies?

Abstract a single primary. Based on the information provided, this is a single tumor, and therefore a single primary, Rule M3. Code the histology to malignant phyllodes tumor.

According to our expert pathologist consultant, "The presence of a phyllodes tumor component identifies the whole thing as such. Stromal overgrowth/sarcoma is the usual identifier of malignancy in a phyllodes tumor. (If there were no phyllodes component we would be left with undifferentiated sarcoma, but that is not the case here. The diagnosis of malignancy in phyllodes tumor may be difficult/problematic when there is no overt stromal/sarcoma overgrowth as in this case.) As an aside, the behaviors of pure sarcoma and a phyllodes tumor such as we have here are similar, but we would lose the primary diagnosis if we just called this sarcoma."

 2016
20160030

Reportability--Carcinoid: Is a diagnosis of carcinoid heart disease, based solely on clinical information and no pathology, reportable?

Carcinoid heart disease is not reportable but this diagnosis indicates that the patient likely has a carcinoid tumor which may be reportable. Obtain further information.

2016
20160037

Reportability/MP/H Rules/Histology--Ovary: What is the histology code for an ovarian tumor described as a mucinous borderline tumor, intestinal type?

Mucinous borderline tumor, intestinal type, of the ovary is not reportable. The behavior is /1. There is no applicable histology code for this histology when it ocurs in the ovary. 

2016
20160078

First course treatment/Radiation Therapy--Prostate: How do you code fiducial markers for prostate cases?

Do not code fiducial markers as a form of radiation treatment; rather, code the radiation therapy in the radiation treatment section.  Fiducial markers are small metal spheres, coils, or cylinders that are placed in or near a tumor to help guide the placement of radiation beams during treatment.

2016
20160046

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Bladder: How many primaries should be reported for the case below? See discussion.

1993 Renal pelvis: Papillary urothelial carcinoma

1994 Bladder: Noninvasive bladder ca NOS

6/11/13 Bladder: Noninvasive papillary urothelial carcinoma

8/19/14 Bladder: urothelial carcinoma in situ

2/13/15 Bladder: Papillary urothelial carcinoma

Would this situation be 2 primaries - 1993 Renal pelvis and 1994 Bladder with the 2015 being the same primary as 1993 Renal pelvis? Or 3 primaries - 1993 Renal pelvis, 1994 Bladder, 2015 Bladder?

Abstract four primaries, 1993 renal pelvis, 1994 bladder, 2013 bladder, and 2015 bladder.

The 1993 renal pelvis diagnosis and the 1994 bladder diagnosis are separate primaries based on the rules in effect at that time (See pages 7-11, http://seer.cancer.gov/archive/manuals/historic/codeman_1992.pdf )

For the remaining diagnoses, the 2007 MP/H rules apply. The 2013 bladder diagnosis is a new primary per rule M7. The 2014 bladder diagnosis is not a new primary per rule M6. The 2015 bladder diagnosis is a new primary per rule M5.

2016