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: 10/25/2025 21:34 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20140079

Laterality: Why is a code 5 for laterality midline only allowed for certain sites of brain and skin? I have a nasal cavity tumor and the path report specifically says "Tumor laterality: midline". What is the correct laterality code here?

Assign laterality code 9 for midline nasal cavity tumor. We will investigate this issue further.

2014
20140060

MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the correct histology code for this lung tumor? FINAL PATHOLOGIC DIAGNOSIS: CT-guided Rotex and Franseen needle biopsies: Positive for malignancy, consistent with adenocarcinoma. Comment: the adenocarcinoma present also shows rare CD56 staining which indicates a neuroendocrine component.

Is this a mixed histology? 8045/3? 8244/3?

Assign histology code 8140/3, adenocarcinoma, based on the final diagnosis. The neuroendocrine component in this case is not another histology, nor is it a more specific adenocarcinoma. "Component" is not one of the words that we use to indicate a more specific histology.

2014
20140081

Reportability/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is primary erythrocytosis equivalent to primary polycythemia and thus reportable? See discussion.

Per the Heme Manual, Appendix F - Non-Reportable list for Heme Diseases, under Polycythemia, the Comment states that polycythemia is also known as erythrocytosis. Because polycythemia is equivalent to erythrocytosis, can we assume that "primary erythrocytosis" is equivalent to "primary polycythemia" and thus reportable as 9950/3 per the Heme DB? Or is the case nonreportable because the exact term of "primary erythrocytosis" is not listed as an alternate name for polycythemia vera, only "primary polycythemia" is listed?

Primary erythrocytosis is not equivalent to primary polycythemia and is not reportable. This will be clarified in a future revision. Thank you for point it out to us.

2014
20140088

Reportability--GIST: The 2014 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual and the answer to SINQ 20100014 appear to conflict with respect to reporting GIST cases. The manual states (p.5, exception 1) that we are to accession the case if the patient is treated for cancer. However, the patient in Example #7 in the SINQ discussion is receiving chemotherapy, but is deemed not reportable. This is a problematic issue in our area, as pathologists prefer using the NCCN “Risk Stratification of Primary GIST by Mitotic Index, Size and Site” table rather than stating whether the tumor is benign or malignant. Although they tell us that moderate or high risk should receive treatment, they will not characterize them as malignant.

Determining reportability for GIST is problematic because of the reluctance of pathologists to use the term "malignant" for GIST cases. If you can document the pathologist's terminology and case characteristics (e.g. treatment) that correspond to "malignant" for your registry as part of the registry's policies and procedures, you can report those cases as malignant.

The exception cited above in the SEER manual pertains to a clinical diagnosis with a negative pathology report. Normally, the negative pathology report would override the clinical diagnosis and the case would not be reportable. However, if the patient is treated for a malignancy in spite of the negative pathology, report the case.

 

2014
20140026

Histology: Are all well differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (carcinoid) tumors coded to 8240 or 8246? When do you use code 8246?

Code 8246 is correct when the mass/lesion is referred to as neuroendocrine "carcinoma" or NEC. Use code 8240 when the mass/lesion is referred to as a neuroendocrine "tumor" or NET G1. The difference is the word tumor versus carcinoma. Carcinoid is most often used interchangeably with neuroendocrine tumor and not with neuroendocrine carcinoma.

2014
20140025

Grade--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Why isn't "T-cell granular lymphocytic leukemia" (9831/3) coded as "5 T-cell" instead of "9" as specified in the Heme database? My path department did not specify any type of grade, but since "T-cell" is part of the name, wouldn't you code it to "5"?

Assign code 5 when the diagnosis on the pathology report specifies "T-cell granular lymphocytic leukemia." The Heme DB grade instruction states "Code grade specified by pathologist. If no grade specified, code 9." In this case, T-cell was specified - code it. The code for T-cell (5) was not automatically assigned in the Heme DB because of the alternate names for this neoplasm. Some of these include NK-cell. Assign code 8 for alternate names with NK.

The alternate names are: Chronic lymphoproliferative disorder of NK cells, Chronic NK-cell lymphocytosis, Chronic NK-large granular lymphocyte (LGL) lymphoproliferative disorder, CLPD-NK, Indolent large granular NK-cell lymphoproliferative disorder, NK-cell lineage granular lymphocyte proliferative disorder, NK-cell LGL lymphocytosis

2014
20140011 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: Is the diagnosis of Paget disease two years after a diagnosis of infiltrating duct carcinoma of the same breast a new primary? See discussion. A patient was diagnosed and treated in 2010 for infiltrating duct carcinoma of the left breast. There was no mention of Paget disease. Then in 2012, the same patient was diagnosed with Paget disease of the nipple of the left breast. Rule M9 seems to apply; so this is the same primary, correct? And the information about the Paget disease is simply never captured, correct? Yes, Rule M9 makes this a single primary. You could revise the original histology code to 8541/3 on the assumption that Paget was present at the original diagnosis, but not yet identified. 2014
20140033

Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Prostate: Can you clarify why a prostate biopsy diagnosis of “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” is not reportable while a biopsy diagnosis of “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable? See discussion.

SINQ 20091103 states that prostate biopsies showing “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” are NOT reportable. However, SINQ 20071056 states that “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable. This appears to be an issue of semantics with no clearly outlined method to determine reportability of such cases.

We have two recent cases with similar semantic issues and want to know whether they are reportable.

1) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation, highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma, with quality/quantity insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer.”

2) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma but due to the small size of focus, findings are not definitively diagnostic.”

Both case examples provided are reportable using instructions for ambiguous terminology. The diagnoses are qualified by the words "highly suspicious" because neither diagnosis is definitive ("insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer" and "not definitively diagnostic."). However, we follow our instructions for interpreting ambiguous terminology and report these cases.

SINQ 20091103 differs slightly. The final diagnosis in 20091103 declares unequivocally "not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma." That phrase in the final diagnosis negates the ambiguous terminology. The situation in 20071056 is similar to the two examples above - the ambiguous terminology instructions apply.

2014
20140038

MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Urinary: How many primaries are there and which MP rules apply in this scenario? See discussion.

Patient has 2 tumors in the left ureter; one is transitional cell (8120) and one is papillary transitional cell (8130). Rule M6 says BLADDER tumors with any combination of the following histologies ... are a single primary. But this is not a bladder case. Rule M8 says urothelial tumors in 2 or more of the following sites are a single primary... but this is not in 2 or more sites. Rule M9 then says histologies different at the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd digit are separate primaries. That makes this 2 primaries, but I do not think this should be 2 primaries.

Rule M9 applies. Abstract 2 primaries.

We will evaluate this scenario for the next version of the multiple primary rules.

2014
20140062

MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: Does lung MP/H Rule M6 apply to synchronous tumors only, metachronous tumors only, or both? See discussion.

How many primaries should be reported when a patient has a history of RLL adenocarcinoma diagnosed on 10/8/2009 followed by diagnoses of LUL adenocarcinoma on 10/5/2012 and a RUL adenocarcinoma on 3/26/2014?

We applied Rule M6 to the 10/5/2012 diagnosis of LUL adenocarcinoma and reported an additional primary. However, we are unsure how to apply the MP/H rules for the 3/26/2014 RUL adenocarcinoma.

Should we apply Rule M8 because the RUL adenocarcinoma was diagnosed more than 3 years after the original RLL adenocarcinoma and then apply M6 because the RUL and LUL indicate a single tumor in each lung (resulting in a third primary); or does Rule M12 apply because there has been more than a single tumor in each lung (no new primary)?

Assuming each of the three diagnoses is a single tumor and there are no other tumors in either lung, abstract two primaries: 1 in the RLL diagnosed on 10/8/2009 and 1 in the LUL diagnosed on 10/5/2012. Do not abstract the 3/26/2014 diagnosis as a new primary.

Rule M6 applies to the 2009 and 2012 diagnoses. Rule M12 applies to the 2012 and 2014 diagnoses. Do not compare the 2014 diagnosis to the 2009 diagnosis. Always compare the latest diagnosis to the most recent previous diagnosis in cases like this.

2014