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: 09/15/2025 00:01 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20140059

Primary site--Bladder: What is the primary site for bladder tumor biopsy: invasive adenocarcinoma, enteric type favor urachal origin, stage III

Based on the information provided, code the primary site to urachus (C677). Primary adenocarcinoma of the bladder accounts for less than 1% of all bladder malignancies. Of these, 20–39% are urachal in origin.

2014
20220022

Tumor Size--Pathologic--Anus: In 2019, the pathology report of an anal canal squamous cell carcinoma stated the tumor size is 2.5 cm from proximal to distal (3.5 cm in circumference).  Is the pathologic tumor size tumor size 025 or 035? 

Based on the information provided, code the tumor size as 035.  We asked an expert pathologist to review this question and she said to use the larger measurement.  She also said "the pathologist usually cuts the anus and rectum open like a tube; the “circumference” would be measured flat."

 2022
20140061

Primary Site/In Situ: How is primary site coded for an in situ carcinoma arising in a mucinous cystadenoma with ovarian stroma (focal) located in the right lobe of the liver? See discussion.

The SEER Coding and Staging Manual instructs one to code the primary site to the location where the tumor originated, in this case the liver. However, there is no CS Extension code for in situ tumors found in the CS Manual Liver Schema.

Based on the information provided, the primary site is liver. Submit the CS question to the CoC CAnswer Forum, http://cancerbulletin.facs.org/forums/content.php

2014
20140055

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is this a reportable case and if so what codes would be used for the primary site and histology?

Lymph node flow cytometry and bone marrow biopsy revealed involvement by a low-grade B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder. Medical oncologist states monoclonal gammopathy, question marginal zone B cell lymphoma versus lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/lymphoproliferative disorder.

Based on the information provided, this case is not reportable. Low grade B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder is not reportable, nor is monoclonal gammopathy. There is no definitive diagnosis for marginal zone or lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. The terminology used includes "question" and "versus" which are not acceptable ambiguous terms for reportability. If possible, follow up with the physician regarding the definitive diagnosis.

2014
20130176

Reportability--Ovary: Is an adult granulosa cell tumor of the right adnexa reportable if the left adnexa, diaphragm and paratubal tissue are reported to be consistent with metastasis? See discussion.

Per the pathology report: Right adnexa: adult granulosa cell tumor. Left adnexa: Foci of metastatic granulosa cell tumor in paratubal tissue. Diaphragm smears: consistent with metastatic granulosa cell tumor. Comment: The morphology and immunoprofile of the cellular aggregates in the paratubal soft tissue are consistent with metastatic granulosa cell tumor.

Based on the information provided, this case of adult granulosa cell tumor is malignant and reportable. According to our expert pathologist consultant, "though granulosa cell tumor NOS/ adult NOS is 8620/1, the presence of peritoneal implants or metastases, and/or lymph node metastases indicates the tumor is malignant, and it should be coded /3."

Note that the presence of implants or metastases does not indicate malignancy in the case of low malignant potential ovarian epithelial tumors. Our path expert explains "in contrast, by convention the behavior of borderline/LMP ovarian epithelial tumors is determined by the ovarian primary, and is /1, even though there may be peritoneal implants/metastases, or metastatic disease in lymph nodes. The treatment may vary in these circumstances, but to my knowledge the decision as to the tumor designation remains based on the primary tumor."

2013
20170054

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries should be abstracted for a patient with a 2011 diagnosis of oligodendroglioma followed by biopsy of tumor which demonstrated progression in 2016 with pathology report Final Diagnosis indicating WHO grade III anaplastic astrocytoma? See Discussion.

The clinical documentation clearly identifies residual tumor after the 2011 craniotomy. Scans demonstrated slow enlargement of the tumor over the years, which resulted in a repeat craniotomy. The pathologist noted in the diagnosis comment section of the pathology report that

Is this a single primary per MP/H Rule M3 (A single tumor is always a single primary), or an additional brain malignancy per MP/H Rule M8 (Tumors with ICD-O-3 histology codes on different branches in Chart 1 or Chart 2 are multiple primaries)?

Based on the information provided, this is a single primary. The 2011 tumor was not completely removed and progressed over the years. MP/H Rule M3 for malignant brain cancer applies. Do not change the original histology code. Use text fields to document the later histologic type of anaplastic astrocytoma, WHO grade III.

 2017
20190038

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Breast: How is the histology coded and which H Rule applies for a single tumor with final diagnosis of invasive mammary carcinoma and College of American Pathologists (CAP) synoptic report states, Histologic type: Invasive cribriform carcinoma with no mention of a tumor percentage? See Discussion.

In the April 2019 Breast Solid Tumor Rules update, the Priority Order for Using Documentation to Identify Histology was changed, giving equal priority to the Final diagnosis / synoptic report as required by CAP (item 2B).

There are technically two histologies documented for the case above; a Not Otherwise Stated (NOS)/No Special Type (NST) (invasive mammary carcinoma, per final diagnosis text) and subtype/variant (invasive cribriform carcinoma, per CAP report). If we do not use the synoptic report with priority over the final diagnosis, Rule H14 indicates the histology would be the NOS histology (invasive mammary carcinoma) because the percentage of tumor is not given for the subtype. However, SINQ 20180045 states, In the CAP protocol, the term Histologic Type is a label where the histology that corresponds to the largest carcinoma is collected. According to the CAP protocol for invasive breast cancer, the histologic type corresponds to the largest carcinoma.

If the pathologist summarizes the findings in a synoptic report, should the specific Histologic Type identified have priority?

Based on the synoptic report findings, code cribriform carcinoma using Breast Solid Tumor Rule H12 which says to code the histology when only one histology is present. The histologic type describes one histology and does not describe the components of an NOS/NST with a subtype, in which case a different rule would apply.

The priority order for using documentation to identify histology gives equal weight to final diagnosis and synoptic report, secondary to addendum or comments. Use the more specific histology if either the final diagnosis or synoptic provides the additional information on the histology.

 2019
20190016

Update to current manual/SS2018--Breast: Should Code 3 of the Summary Stage 2018 (SS2018) for Breast designate the intramammary and infraclavicular lymph nodes as being ipsilateral? Similarly, should Code 7 designate infraclavicular lymph nodes as contralateral/bilateral? Laterality (ipsilateral, contralateral/bilateral) is included for axillary and internal mammary nodes in the respective codes.

Based on your question, a review of the AJCC manual was done to clarify how these nodes would be coded. A review of Extent of Disease (EOD) Regional Nodes and EOD Mets was also done. That information is correct and in line with AJCC 8th edition. We apologize that SS2018 was not updated accordingly and thank you for bringing this issue to our attention.

Per AJCC, infraclavicular and intramammary nodes are ipsilateral for the N category. Contralateral or bilateral involvement are included in the M category.

The following will be applied to the planned 2020 update of the SS2018 manual.

Code 3

Ipsilateral will be added to Infraclavicular and Intramammary

Infraclavicular (subclavicular) (ipsilateral)

Intramammary (ipsilateral)

Code 7

The following will be added under Distant lymph nodes

Infraclavicular (subclavicular) (contralateral or bilateral)

Intramammary (contralateral or bilateral)

 2019
20031081 Primary Site/EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Lung: If the only lung mass described in CXR is a "hilar mass," is the primary site coded to C34.9 [Lung, NOS] or C34.0 [Main Bronchus; incl. Carina]? Also, can the size of the hilar mass be used to code the size of tumor field?

Because the only description available is "hilar mass," code primary site as C34.0.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Use size of mass for EOD-Size of Primary Tumor.

 2003
20120059 Primary site/Reportability--Breast: Is a "right nipple skin" biopsy that demonstrates squamous cell carcinoma reportable using a primary site of C500? See Discussion. In the 2011 SEER Manual Reportability Examples, example 3, it states a "biopsy-proven squamous cell carcinoma of the nipple" is reportable when the subsequent resection shows "no evidence of residual malignancy in the nipple epidermis." However, this example does not specify the biopsy is from the nipple skin and the ICD-O-3 does not list nipple skin as a synonym for code C500.

Because the site is specifically stated to "skin" of nipple [C44.5], this case is not reportable.

If possible, you may wish to confirm the type of biopsy performed. If the biopsy was done by FNA or needle biopsy, the biopsy tissue should contain a full-thickness of skin and subcutaneous breast (nipple) tissue. If that is the case, this tumor would likely be a reportable squamous cell carcinoma of nipple [C50.0]. If, however, this was a punch biopsy it is more likely a non-reportable squamous cell carcinoma of the skin [C44.5].

2012