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: 02/13/2026 00:02 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20200079

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Primary Site--Brain and CNS: Should the updated note for optic nerve glioma be included in both the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules for Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) and Peripheral Nerves, Note 6, and the Non-Malignant CNS Tumors, Note 5? See Discussion.

Should the updated Note 5 from the Non-malignant CNS regarding optic nerve glioma also be incorporated into Note 6 for Malignant CNS rules (the pilocytic astrocytoma note)?

This was one of the major issues identified in the SEER*Educate Workshop. Registrars have demonstrated they do not consistently think to look at the Non-malignant CNS schema when they see the term glioma and continue to misclassify optic nerve gliomas as malignant.

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

The 2022 Solid Tumor Update will include a new note in the Terms & Definitions, Introduction section that will state: See the Non-malignant CNS rules when the primary site is optic nerve and the diagnosis is either optic glioma or pilocytic astrocytoma. The behavior is non-malignant and coded 9421/1.

 2020
20140015 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is there an instruction missing under Rule PH22 of the 2014 Heme Manual that addresses when it might be appropriate to code primary site to C779 for a Stage II lymphoma? See discussion. It appears there is no instruction under PH22 that covers Example 5 (The patient has a history of Stage II lymphoma, no other information is available). All the bulleted instructions are for organ and lymph node combination involvement. Was the 2010 Heme Rule PH31 (Code the primary site to lymph nodes, NOS (C779) when lymph node(s) are involved but no primary site/particular lymph node region is identified) supposed to be listed under PH22? There does appear to be an empty bullet on the current web version.

The 5th bullet under Rule PH 22 was inadvertently omitted. A corrected version of the Heme manual will be posted soon. Thank you for identifying this omission.

In the meantime, please add the following to PH22:

Code the primary site to lymph nodes, NOS (C779) when lymph node(s) are involved but no primary site/particular lymph node region is identified.

 2014
20110016 Behavior--Brain and CNS: Can hemangioblastomas occurring in the CNS be coded as /3 (malignant) based on a radiologic or clinical diagnosis by the physician? See Discussion. Hemangioblastomas are borderline (/1) according to ICD-O. The standard matrix rule in ICD-O directs registrars to change the behavior code to malignant when a malignant (/3) behavior is stated by a physician for a morphology code that appears in ICD-O with a non-malignant behavior code. The "malignant" hemangioblastomas we see are not pathologically confirmed; they are radiological or clinical diagnoses confirmed when renal cell carcinoma is a disease process listed in the malignant differential diagnoses.

The behavior code for hemangioblastoma can be coded to /3 when a pathologist indicates that the behavior is malignant. The behavior code should be based on a pathologist's opinion. It is usually not possible for a radiologist or patient care physician to make this determination clinically.

The histologic appearance of hemangioblastoma may resemble metastatic renal cell carcinoma; therefore, one will often see renal cell carcinoma listed as a possible diagnosis. This does not indicate that the hemangioblastoma is malignant. Do not code the behavior as /3 based on a differential diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma.

2011
20081005

Histology/Behavior--Brain and CNS: How are these fields coded for an "anaplastic glioneuronal neoplasm with spongioblastic architecture"? See Discussion.

Scenario: Addendum from Mayo Clinic review, IHC and consultation made dx of "anaplastic glioneuronal neoplasm with spongioblastic architecture". The original micro states 'high grade glial neoplasm w/o characteristic features of glioblastoma multiforme in that it lacks areas of significant necrosis, no nuclear palisading nor endothelial vascular proliferation...."

The best code available according to our pathologist consultant is 9505/3 [Ganglioglioma, anaplastic]. According to our consultant, while ganglioglioma is traditionally a benign tumor, anaplastic ganglioglioma is classified as malignant by WHO (page 103), and comes as close to fitting the description of this tumor as any other term.

 2008
20071086 Histology--Pancreas: How is a "gastrin and somatostatin producing endocrine neoplasm" coded that has lymph node metastasis?

The best code available for this situation is 8153/3 [Gastrinoma, malignant].

Many pancreatic endocrine tumors produce more than one peptide, such as gastrin and somatostatin in this case. ICD-O-3 does not provide a code for pancreatic endocrine tumors which produce more than one peptide. According to the WHO Classification of Tumours of Endocrine Organs, there is a distinct hormonal syndrome associated with gastrin producing tumors, and not with many of the somatostatin producing tumors. Therefore, our pathologist consultant advises us to code to gastrinoma in this case.

 2007
20200061

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Bladder: A patient has high-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma with focal glandular and neuroendocrine differentiation followed by carcinosarcoma. Is this one or two primaries? See Discussion.

12-19-19 Transurethral resection of bladder tumor pathology revealed high-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma with focal glandular and neuroendocrine features; Pathology Overread: High-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma with focal glandular and neuroendocrine differentiation. Carcinoma invades muscularis propria pT2.

Histology 8130

01/20/20 to 07/01/20, completed 6 cycles of gemcitabine/cisplatin.

07/30/20 Robotic radical cystoprostatectomy with bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection, open ileal conduit pathology revealed carcinosarcoma, invading perivesical fat, no lymphovascular invasion, negative margins. ypT3bN0M0 disease; Pathology Overread: Carcinosarcoma arising in association with high-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma.

Histology 8980/3 or is there another histology that should be used?

The carcinosarcoma is a separate tumor, abstract a new primary per M13. Code this primary to 8980/3.

Based on the information provided, the patient was first diagnosed with papillary urothelial carcinoma and received neo-adjuvant treatment for that specific histologic type. Subsequent resection identified carcinosarcoma arising within the papillary neoplasm. Carcinosarcoma is rare in bladder primaries and is not included in Table 2; however, it is a subtype/variant of sarcoma.

 2020
20140034

Reportability--Ovary: Can you clarify when widely metastatic borderline histologies of the ovary and various other sites are reportable? See discussion.

SINQ 20130176 states that an adult granulosa cell tumor of the ovary with metastases is malignant. However, SINQ 20091087 states that a borderline tumor of the appendix with metastasis is not reportable.

The first statement of 20130176 “though granulosa cell tumor is coded 8620/1, the presence of peritoneal or lymph node metastases indicate the tumor is malignant and coded as /3” does not coincide with the second statement of “the behavior of borderline/LMP ovarian epithelial tumors is determined by the ovarian primary, even though there may be peritoneal implants or metastatic disease in the lymph nodes”. If the ovarian metastases do make this a reportable malignancy, can this line of thinking be used to determine reportability for borderline histologies for other sites such as the appendix?

The case in 20130176 is adult granulosa cell tumor. The answer points out an important difference in the way "metastases" from this histology should be interpreted versus low malignant potential ovarian epithelial tumors. Metastases from adult granulosa cell tumor of the ovary indicates a malignant primary. So-called metastases from a LMP epithelial tumor do not indicate a malignant primary when the metastatic deposits are also LMP/borderline in behavior.

Do not apply instructions for ovarian cases to other primary sites including appendix.

2014
20071060

Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Esophagus: Is a case with a biopsy diagnosis of "... focal areas suspicious for adenocarcinoma in situ change" reportable if the diagnosis on the partial esophagectomy specimen only includes the phrase "... with foci of high grade dysplasia; no invasive carcinoma identified"?

The case is not reportable.

The biopsy with a suspicious result (suspicious for adenocarcinoma) was disproven by the esophagectomy.

 2007
20100002 Reportability/Histology--Colon: Is a colon tumor reportable if the pathology report final diagnosis is high grade dysplasia but CAP protocol histologic type designation is adenocarcinoma in situ? See Discussion. The microscopic description and the final diagnosis on the pathology report indicate the tumor is a large tubulovillous adenoma of the cecum with focal surface high grade dysplasia. The CAP protocol histologic type designation is adenocarcinoma in situ and pT designation is pTis. Which has priority? Is the case reportable?

The case is reportable because carcinoma in situ is stated. Carcinoma in situ has higher priority than severe dysplasia or high grade dysplasia.

Per AJCC 6th edition colon chapter, the terms "high grade dysplasia" or "severe dysplasia" may be synonymous with carcinoma in situ. Because the pathologist gave carcinoma in situ information within the CAP, (s)he is apparently defining the dysplasia as in situ carcinoma.

 2010
20010155

Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Melanoma: Would a shave biopsy diagnosis of "highly suggestive of early melanoma", followed by a re-excision diagnosis of "no residual disease", be SEER reportable if the clinician referred to the case clinically as a melanoma? If so, what would the Diagnostic Confirmation be? See discussion.

Pathology report from a shave biopsy states: "...markedly atypical junctional melanocytic proliferation. Changes highly suggestive of early melanoma arising adjacent to superficial congenital nevus." The re-excision pathology report states "biopsy proven melanoma" in the "Clinical History" section of the report (which is a reference to the original shave biopsy). The re-excision final pathology diagnosis states "no evidence of melanoma." The physician states that he thinks this is a melanoma. Should it be reported? Should Diagnostic Confirmation be coded to 1 or 8?

The case is reportable because the physician documented a clinical diagnosis of malignant melanoma. Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field to 8 [Clinical diagnosis only (other than 5, 6 or 7)].

 2001