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: 04/30/2025 12:04 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20061104 Reportability/Behavior--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a "myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative disease, unclassifiable" coded to 9975 with a behavior code of 3 as indicated in the WHO blue book on "Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues" or is it not abstracted because it has a behavior code of 1 which means the case is not reportable?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code MDS/MPD U to 9975/3 [Myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative disease, unclassifiable]. Change the behavior code to /3 according to ICD-O-3 Rule F. The case is reportable.

The WHO book is more recent and gives a specific code for this new hybrid category of the WHO/REAL classification.

For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.

 2006
20120091 Reportability/Behavior--Kidney: Is epithelioid angiomyolipoma (AML) of the kidney a reportable malignancy? See Discussion. The addendum final diagnosis on a pathology report for a kidney core needle biopsy included the results of additional stains performed on the tissue. It indicated the morphology was most consistent with epithelioid angiomyolipoma. Further comments in the body of the report indicate these tumors are now considered malignant neoplasms with the capacity to be locally aggressive and they can potentially metastasize. There is no mention of a metastasis in this particular case.

Epithelioid angiomyolipoma (AML) [8860/0] of the kidney is not reportable unless stated to be malignant.

If the pathologist confirms this is a malignancy, apply ICD-O-3 Rule F (Matrix principle) and assign the behavior code /3. If confirmation is received, accession the case using the morphology code 8860/3 [malignant angiomyolipoma].

2012
20051129 Reportability/Behavior--Thyroid: Does the term "invasion" indicate the presence of a malignant tumor? See Discussion. Left thyroid lobectomy showed microfollicular neoplasm with evidence of minimal invasion. Micro portion of path report stated, "The capsular contour is focally distorted by a finger of the microfollicular nodule which appears to penetrate into the adjacent capsular and thyroid tissue."

We recommend that you contact the pathologist for further information. If no further information is available, do not accession this case based on the information provided. There is no definitive statement of malignancy.

If the case was sent to a consultant, there may be another opinion available. If there is information in the record, or the treating physician can be contacted, find out whether the tumor was benign or malignant and whether there was any further treatment.

According to our pathologist consultant, based only on the information above and nothing else, do not report since there is no diagnosis of malignancy.

 2005
20100018 Reportability/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is light chain disease reportable if it is treated with chemotherapy agents? See Discussion.

A patient was diagnosed in 2010 with light chain disease based on SPEP and urine testing. Bone marrow aspiration and biopsy were done. Flow cytometry, cytogenetic studies and FISH for plasma cell disorders are all normal. Medical oncologist states diagnosis is light chain disease. Patient was started on Revlimid, dexamethasone and Velcade.

In reviewing the case reportability instructions, this seems to fall under Instruction 1, note 1. Immunoglobulin deposition disease, preferred term for light chain disease, is coded as 9769/1. This is normally a non-reportable diagnosis, but the patient was given cancer-directed treatment. Would this case be accessioned using the above morphology code and primary site of bone marrow [C42.1]?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

This case is not reportable. The histology is 9769/1 [light chain disease] in the Heme DB.

Light chains are produced in neoplastic plasma cells (multiple myeloma) and are called Bence-Jones proteins. The physician did the cytogenetic studies and FISH to rule out plasma cell disease. 50-60% of people with Light-chain deposition disease (LCDD) have an associated lymphoproliferative disorder, most commonly multiple myeloma. The remaining patients develop LCDD in the setting of progression of monoclonal gammopathy of unknown significance (MGUS) with no evidence of neoplastic plasma cell proliferation. This patient falls in this category, MGUS, which is not reportable.

2010
20021099 Reportability/Histology (Pre-2007)--Pancreas: Are the following pancreatic tumors with mention of "low grade malignant potential/borderline" reportable to SEER? If so, what histology and behavior codes should be used? See discussion.

1. AFIP diagnosis: Pancreas, tail, resection: Mucinous cystadenocarcinoma (mucinous cystic neoplasm) of low grade malignant potential. Comment: There are no reliable histomorphologic features which can separate these neoplasms into benign and malignant tumors, and so we consider them all to be low grade malignant tumors.

2. Whipple resection: Intraductal papillary mucinous tumor of the pancreas with extensive low grade and multifocal high grade ductal dysplasia (so-called borderline tumor and carcinoma in-situ).

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Both tumors are reportable to SEER.

1. Code the Histology and Behavior Code fields to 8470/3 [Mucinous cystadenocarcinoma, NOS].

2. Code the Histology and Behavior Code fields to 8453/2 [Intraductal papillary-mucinous carcinoma, non-invasive].

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2002
20021011 Reportability/Histology (Pre-2007)/Behavior Code/Primary Site: How would you code these fields for a case in which an infant presents with a skin rash, enlarged spleen, palpable abdominal mass, inconclusive bone marrow biopsy and a skin biopsy that was positive for "Langerhans cell histiocytosis"? See discussion. The pathologist states, "I would consider this case a malignancy, although it does not always behave as such. Lesions in babies often act in a malignant manner."

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

If the pathologist states this is a malignancy, the case is reportable. Code the Histology field to 9751/3 [Langerhans cell histiocytosis, NOS] and change the Behavior Code from 1 to 3. Code the Primary Site field to skin [C44._].

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2002
20091081 Reportability/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is an "inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor" reportable for Brain and CNS sites? See Discussion. Histology code 8825/1 (Inflammatory Myofibroblastic Tumor) is not listed in the ICD-0-3 Primary Brain and CNS Site/Histology listing for reportable Brain/CNS tumors.

If the inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor is primary in one of the sites specified below and diagnosed 1/1/2004 or later, it is reportable.

Reportable brain and CNS tumors are any benign and borderline primary intracranial and CNS tumors with a behavior code of /0 or /1 in ICD-O-3 diagnosed 1/1/2004 and later, of the following sites:

  • Cerebral meninges C700
  • Spinal meninges C701
  • Meninges, NOS C709
  • Cerebrum C710
  • Frontal lobe C711
  • Temporal lobe C712
  • Parietal lobe C713
  • Occipital lobe C714
  • Ventricle, NOS C715
  • Cerebellum, NOS C716
  • Brain stem C717
  • Overlapping lesion of brain C718
  • Brain, NOS C719
  • Spinal cord C720
  • Cauda equine C721
  • Olfactory nerve C722
  • Optic nerve C723
  • Acoustic nerve C724
  • Cranial nerve, NOS C725
  • Overlapping lesion of brain and central nervous system C728
  • Nervous system, NOS C729
  • Pituitary gland C751
  • Craniopharyngeal duct C752
  • Pineal gland C753

 2009
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
20031035 Reportability/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: Does the presence of sideroblasts on a bone marrow biopsy confirm a diagnosis of refractory anemia with sideroblasts?

Final path diagnosis of bone marrow biopsy:

I. Hypercellular marrow for age with trilinear hyperplasia.

II. Decreased iron stores with decreased sideroblasts.

Comment: Although the overall picture is not diagnostic of a specific entity, it is most consistent with an early stage myelodysplastic syndrome which would best be considered refractory anemia at this point.

In this case the percentage of sideroblasts is not stated. Would the path diagnosis of "decreased sideroblasts" along with the path comment of "refractory anemia" indicate that this case should be coded to 9982/3 [Refractory anemia with sideroblasts]?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

For the hematologic diseases, do not accession the case unless there is a definite positive diagnosis. A positive diagnosis, such as "Refractory anemia" must be stated in order to code that diagnosis. Other words associated with the positive diagnosis, such as "sideroblasts" are NOT to be used alone to assume a diagnosis.

Decreased sideroblasts does not make a diagnosis of Refractory anemia with sideroblasts. The sideroblasts for 9982/3 [Refractory anemia with sideroblasts] are characteristic in rings, and are INCREASED to make the diagnosis.

Based on the information provided, this case is not reportable. The final path diagnosis is not a reportable disease. The comment further states that the overall picture is not diagnostic of a specific entity. Therefore, it should not be reported at this point.

For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.

2003
20081040 Reportability/Histology--Hematopoietic: If a JAK2 positive myeloproliferative disorder is reportable, how should histology be coded?

Please discuss the significance of JAK2 point mutation.

Example: Bone marrow biopsy showed hypercellular marrow with increased megakaryocytes associated with JAK2 point mutation consistent with myeloproliferative syndrome. Path comment: While the morphologic changes would be compatible with a myeloproliferative syndrome, they are not specific for this as similar findings can be seen in reactive conditions. However, a molecular diagnostic test demonstrated a positive JAK2 point mutation which would support the diagnosis of myeloproliferative syndrome. In summary, the combined histologic and molecular diagnostic findings support a myeloproliferative syndrome. The differential diagnosis would be between polycythemia vera and essential thrombocythemia. Subsequent clinical diagnosis: polycythemia vera.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Follow the instructions in the SEER manual on pages 1-4 to determine reportability.

Code the histology using all information available for the case. If the clinician reviews the case and states a particular histology based on his/her review, code that histology.

The clinician has access to all of the information available for this case. He/she uses his/her expertise to form a clinical diagnosis.

For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.

 2008