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: 10/24/2025 08:15 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20140004 Grade--Liver: How should grade be coded for a liver lesion treated with radio frequency ablation (RFA) followed by a transplant showing moderately differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma? See discussion. The SEER Manual emphasizes the importance of coding grade only prior to neoadjuvant treatment as systemic treatment and radiation can alter a tumor's grade. This patient did not have neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiation, but did undergo a prior surgical procedure (RFA) in an attempt to destroy tumor tissue. The subsequent transplant showed residual moderately differentiated HCC. For this case, record the grade specified even though it is after RFA. RFA is not systemic or radiation treatment and should not alter the grade. 2014
20140019

Reportability--Breast: Is this reportable as 8520/2?

Final Diagnosis: Atypical Lobular Hyperplasia (ALH/LCIS). We are seeing this diagnosis quite often.

 ALH/LCIS is reportable. LCIS (lobular carcinoma in situ) is a reportable neoplasm. When LCIS is stated as the final diagnosis, report the case. 2014
20140050

MP/H Rules/Histology--Sarcoma: What would be the morphology code for a low grade myofibroblastic sarcoma of the left distal forearm? I tried several different combinations but the closest I could come up with is myosarcoma.

Assign code 8825/3. Apply the ICD-O-3 Matrix Concept, Rule F, page 29 of the hardcover ICD-O-3. The WHO Classification of Soft tissue and Bone, page 85, lists low grade myofibroblastic sarcoma, also called myofibrosarcoma, 8825/3.

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
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
20140054

MP/H/Multiple primaries--Stomach: How should I report this case? I reviwed both the MP/H and the Heme Rules and could not determine whether or not this case is multiple primaries in a single site but two histologies and therefore needing two separate abstracts.

Path Diagnosis: Gastric Mass Biopsy: 1) Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma. 2) Extranodal Marginal Zone Lymphoma of Mucosa-Associated Lymphoid Tissue (MALT Lymphoma). 3) Mild Intestinal Metaplasia and Marked Fundic Gland Atrophy, Negative for H Pylori. Comments: Biopsy shows presence of both signet ring carcinoma and MALT Lymphoma.

Report two primaries: MALT lymphoma and signet ring carcinoma. Use the 2007 MP/H rules and the Heme rules for this case.

This case could be an example of a "collision tumor" - two separate tumors that grow together into one mass. Collision tumors are a rare exception to rule M2 in the MP/H rules.

2014
20140086

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Colon: Does rule M7 apply here (A frank malignant or in situ adenocarcinoma and an in situ or malignant tumor in a polyp are a single primary)? Can the frank malignant adenocarcinoma be any specific type of adenocarcinoma for this rule to apply?

A patient has 2 synchronous tumors in the ascending colon. The first is grade 3 adenocarcinoma with signet ring differentiation and focal mucinous features (8255/3). The second is grade 2-3 adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma (8263/3).

M7 applies to this case. The frank adenocarcinoma can be a specific type of adenocarcinoma.

2014
20140089

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the 2014 diagnosis be abstracted as a new primary since it is not mantle cell lymphoma and all of the types listed in the differential diagnosis would be a new primary? See discussion.

Mantle cell lymphoma diagnosed in 1997 which was treated with chemotherapy. Now in 2014 a 'relapse' of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. They do a biopsy of the pericardium, which is called low grade B cell non Hodgkin lymphoma. See comment. The comment says histochemical stains are reviewed and findings are consistent with involvement by a CD5 positive low grade B cell lymphoma. Lack of cyclin D1 and SOX-11 positivity as well as negative IGH-CCND1 FISH analysis essentially rule out mantle cell lymphoma. The morphologic and immunophenotypic features of this disorder are not specific for any lymphoma subtype. The differential includes CLL, marginal zone lymphoma, and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. If this is coded NHL, NOS (9591) it is the same primary as seq. 1 and would not be abstracted.

This is the same primary, the mantle cell lymphoma.

Differential diagnoses cannot be used to assign histology. For the 2014 diagnosis, the only histology that can be assigned is 9591/3 for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS. (CLL, mantle cell lymphoma and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma are all NHL's.)

Compare the 1997 diganosis of mantle cell lymphoma with the 2014 diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Start with Rule M1. The first rule that applies is Rule M15, which instructs you to use the multiple primaries calculator. Enter 9673/3 and then 9591/3 and then calculate. The result is same primary.

If at a later time one of the differential diagnoses is confirmed, apply the rules again.

 

 

 

 

2014
20140001 Grade--Brain and CNS: How should grade be coded for a pineal parenchymal tumor of "intermediate differentiation"? See discussion.

Per a web search, the term "pineal parenchymal tumor of intermediate differentiation" refers to a pineal tumor with the histology/behavior that falls somewhere between the category of pineocytoma (9361/1) and pineoblastoma (9362/3). In other words, it is a malignant tumor that is a WHO grade II/III neoplasm because it's histologic features and behavior are not quite equivalent to a pineoblastoma (WHO grade IV). Thus, it appears the expression "intermediate differentiation" is actually referring to a type of WHO classification system rather than the grade field.

Should the type of documentation provided in pathology report be used to imply the grade field is being referenced and thus be coded to 2 for "intermediate differentiation" or should grade be coded to 9 based on the information found during the web search?

Code the grade as 2 based on instruction #8 in the revised grade instructions for 2014.

Do not use WHO grade to code the grade field for CNS tumors.

 2014
20140072

Reportability--Head & Neck: Would this be reportable and if so what histology would be coded? Soft tissue mass left cheek excision reveals Carcinoma Ex Pleomorphic Adenoma Non-Invasive with focal vascular invasion. Margins clear.

Carcinoma ex pleomorphic adenoma (Ca-ex-PA) is reportable. Assign 8941/3. The WHO classification of head and neck tumors defines Ca-ex-PA as an epithelial malignancy arising in a benign pleomorphic adenoma. Most of these originate in the parotid gland but can also arise in other salivary glands.

2014