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: 09/22/2025 13:45 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20100022 Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a 2010 diagnosis of ALK+ anaplastic T cell lymphoma following a 2008 diagnosis of follicular B cell lymphoma, grade 1 a new primary? If so, how is the histology coded? See Discussion. A patient has a history of Stage 4 follicular B cell lymphoma, grade 1 [9695/3] diagnosed in 2008. The patient was treated with Adriamycin, Cytoxan, Rituxan, and Prednisone. In 2010, the medical oncologist states the patient has progression/recurrence of lymphoma with pathology that has changed to anaplastic T cell lymphoma ALK+. There was immunophenotyping, but there was no more specific diagnosis made. The patient died within 3 months.

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

Abstract the anaplastic T cell lymphoma as a new primary. Code the histology to 9714/3 [Anaplastic large cell lymphoma, ALK-positive].

Rule M15 applies to this cases which instructs you to use the Multiple Primaries Calculator. The result for 9695/3 and 9714/3 is "New Primary."

Apply Rule PH30 to code histology which instructs you to use the Heme DB to determine the histology when rules PH1-PH29 do not apply. In searching the Heme DB for "anaplastic" the first term returned is Anaplastic large cell lymphoma, ALK-positive [9714/3].

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2010
20100108 MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: How is histology coded for a left occipital parietal area tumor stated to be a "low grade neuroectodermal neoplasm most consistent with neuronal tumor but lacking classic features of ganglioma" if the pathologist states the tumor is not malignant? Code 9505/0 [Ganglioglioma, benign] is the best option according to our pathology expert. He states, "There recently has been a spate of tumors called low grade glio-neuronal tumors that are not PNETs and have no propensity to become malignant." 2010
20100062 MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How is histology coded when there is a lung biopsy compatible with non-small cell carcinoma and regional lymph node biopsies compatible with adenocarcinoma? See Discussion. Which histology has priority when the pathology specimens reveal different histologies in the primary site and the regional lymph node? Do we assume the lung biopsy is the most representative tumor specimen because it is from the primary site and code to 8046 [non-small cell carcinoma] or should we use rule H5 and code to 8140 [adenocarcinoma, NOS] because adenocarcinoma is a more specific histology than non-small cell carcinoma? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code histology based on a pathology report from the primary site whenever possible. Code histology to 8046/3 [non-small cell carcinoma] for the case example provided. 2010
20100014 Reportability: Are there criteria other than a pathologist or clinician's statement that a registrar can use to determine reportability of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST)? See Discussion.

Per SINQ 20091021 and 20021151, GIST cases are not reportable unless they are stated to be malignant. A pathologist or clinician must confirm the diagnosis of cancer. There are cases that are not stated to be malignant in the pathology report or confirmed as such by a clinician; however, these cases do have information that for other primary sites would typically be taken into consideration when determining reportability. The final diagnosis on the pathology report for all 16 cases is "GIST." The additional comment(s) for each of the 16 different cases is reported below. Are any of the following cases reportable?

1) Pathology report indicates that the bulk of the tumor is submucosal. It extends through the muscularis propria and abuts the serosa.

2) Pathology report states tumor extends to serosal surface of transverse colon, but not into muscularis propria. CD 117 and CD 34 are positive.

3) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades through the gastric wall to the serosal surface.

4) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades pericolic fat tissue.

5) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate omental caking.

6) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate hepatic metastases. Hepatic metastases are not biopsied.

7) Tumor stated to be unresectable and extends into pancreas. Chemotherapy given.

8) Pathology report states tumor is low to intermediate grade and involves serosal (visceral peritoneum).

9) Tumor size is 17.5 cm. Pathology report states "malignant risk".

10) Pathology report states tumor "into muscularis propria" or tumor "involves muscularis propria" or "infiltrates into muscularis propria".

11) Pathology report states, "high malignant potential; omentum inv by tumor." It is not stated in path report or final diagnosis to be malignant GIST.

12) Pathology report states that tumor arises from wall of small bowel and extends into thin serosal surface.

13) Pathology report states minimal invasion of lamina propria; does not penetrate muscularis propria.

14) Pathology report states, "high mitotic activity >10/50 HPF; high risk for aggressive behavior; moderate malignant potential."

15) Pathology report states tumor size is >5 cm. Intermediate risk for aggressive behavior; CD117+ KIT exon 11+.

16) Pathology report states "high risk of malignancy."

 For GIST to be reportable, the final diagnosis on the pathology report must definitively state that the GIST is malignant, or invasive, or in situ. Case 6 is the only exception. It would be reportable assuming the scan actually states "hepatic metastases." Based only on the information provided, none of the other examples are reportable. The type of extension and/or invasion mentioned in the other examples are not sufficient to confirm malignancy. Borderline neoplasms can extend and invade, but do not metastasize. Only malignant neoplasms metastasize. 2010
20100025

MP/H Rules/Primary site--Kidney, Renal Pelvis: Should the primary site be changed to C689 [Urinary system, NOS] for a primary renal pelvis tumor after additional tumors are found months later in different urinary sites (e.g., bladder or ureter) and the MP/H Rules indicate these are all the same primary? See Discussion.

In a patient is diagnosed 1/29/08 with an invasive grade 3 of 3 papillary urothelial cell carcinoma arising in the depth of a calyx in mid portion of kidney, the primary site was coded C659 [Renal pelvis]. In 6/1/09 a TURBT showed three separate lesions on the right side of the bladder. The final diagnosis was high grade urothelial carcinoma in-situ with three tumors, the largest being 7mm. Per rule M8, the renal pelvis primary and subsequent bladder tumors are the same primary. Would the primary site be changed to C689 [Urinary system, NOS] when the bladder tumors were identified? Or is C689 only coded if more than one primary site is involved at diagnosis?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M8 applies. This is a single primary. The primary site was coded to C659 in 2008. Do not change the primary site code.

 2010
20100009 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Bladder: Is a new primary accessioned for a 2009 diagnosis of transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder when the patient has a history of invasive bladder cancer NOS diagnosed? See Discussion.

A patient has a history of invasive bladder cancer diagnosed several years ago in another state. In 2009, the patient was admitted and found to have a positive biopsy for transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder.

Is this a new primary because the histology of the previous bladder cancer is unknown? When the histology of a previously diagnosed bladder cancer is unknown, should we assume the previous tumor was urothelial carcinoma?

 For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, apply rule M6. The 2009 diagnosis is not a new primary. Transitional cell carcinomas account for more than 90% of bladder cancers. If the patient actually had a rare small cell, squamous cell, or adenocarcinoma of the bladder in the past, it is highly likely it would be mentioned in the medical record. 2010
20100083 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned for a patient with a longstanding history of follicular cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma followed by a 2010 diagnosis of "B-cell lymphoma with prominent large cell component, compatible with primary cutaneous follicle center cell lymphoma"? See Discussion.

Patient has a history of follicular cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma dating back to the 1990s. The patient was treated with chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation, radiation and rituximab. The patient had no evidence of recurrence. In April 2010 a lesion appeared on the side of the scalp above the left ear with a diagnosis of "B-cell lymphoma with prominent large cell component, compatible with primary cutaneous follicle center cell lymphoma." The oncology diagnosis is "primary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma."

Would the Multiple Primaries Calculator be used in this case?

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

Accession two primaries per Rule M15. Per the Multiple Primaries Calculator, primary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma [9597/3] following a diagnosis of follicular lymphoma, NOS [9690/3] is a new primary.

While the pathologic diagnosis was B-cell lymphoma "compatible with" primary cutaneous follicle center cell lymphoma and ambiguous terms cannot be used to identify a more specific histology, the physician confirmed the more specific diagnosis without ambiguous terminology. Therefore, this diagnosis should be coded.

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2010
20100111 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is this field coded for a "myeloma, plasmablastic variant"?

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

Code histology to 9732/3 [multiple myeloma]. The plasmablastic subtype/variant does have a prognostic indication, but the disease is still coded as multiple myeloma.

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2010
20100019 Histology--Ovary: How is histology coded for an ovarian mucinous neoplasm of low malignant potential (borderline mucinous cystadenoma) that shows extensive intraepithelial carcinoma and focal microinvasion? See Discussion. At surgery a 25 cm left ovarian mass is found adherent to the anterior abdominal wall. The final diagnosis per the pathology report is, "Mucinous neoplasm (26 cm) of low malignant potential (borderline mucinous cystadenoma) with extensive intraepithelial ca and focal microinvasion. Right ovary, fallopian tubes, uterus, omentum, biopsies of diaphragm, 28 para-aortic and pelvic LNS and peritoneal fluid are all negative for malignancy." Histology code 8470/3 [mucinous cystadenocarcinoma] is the best choice in this case. There is a mucinous cystadenoma [8470/0] with intraepithelial carcinoma and focal microinvasion. 8470/3 comes as close as possible to the description of the tumor. 2010
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