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: 11/19/2025 08:52 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20110072 Multiplicity Counter/Date Multiple Tumors--Bladder: How are these fields coded when multiple tumors were present at the time of diagnosis and another tumor diagnosed a year later is determined to be the same primary? See Discussion. In November 2007, a nephroureterectomy showed an invasive TCC of the renal pelvis and a separate in situ TCC of the ureter. The Multiplicity Counter field is coded 02 and the Date Multiple Tumors is coded to November 2007. In December 2008, an in situ bladder tumor is found. Are the multiplicity fields to be updated to reflect the new bladder tumor?

Multiplicity Counter field was initially coded 02. Change the code to 03 because the subsequent, additional tumor was determined to be the same primary. Update the Multiplicity Counter field only once. If additional tumors are determined to be the same primary for this case, it is not necessary to update this field again.

Date of Multiple Tumors field was initially coded November 2007. Multiple tumors were present at the time of the initial diagnosis. Do not change the date of this field when additional tumors are subsequently diagnosed. This data item reflects the earliest date that multiple tumors were present. See example 2 under #3 on page 81 of the 2010 SEER manual.

2011
20110047

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted when a patient is diagnosed with NHL, large B-cell lymphoma in 3/2010 followed by a "recurrence of previously diagnosed" NHL per a 12/2010 liver biopsy? See Discussion.

Are there timing rules related to the comparison of slides from a subsequent hematopoietic primary diagnosis to the slides from the original hematopoietic primary diagnosis that impact the number or primaries reported?

For example, how many primaries are reported for a patient was diagnosed in 3/2010 with large B-cell lymphoma who underwent 7 rounds of chemo. Per 10/2010 PET scan, there was no evidence of disease. In 12/2010 a liver biopsy revealed, "features consistent with recurrence of previously diagnosed non-Hodgkin lymphoma." The pathologist did not compare slides to the original, but several immunoperoxidase stains were done to obtain the final diagnosis in 12/2010.

Does timing or comparison to the original slides matter for Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms? Is a comparison of slides needed as required for solid tumor "recurrences"?

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

This case should be accessioned as one primary per Rule M15, 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma]. Per Rule M15 one is to use the Heme DB Multiple Primaries Calculator to determine the number of primaries for all cases that do not meet the criteria of M1-M14. The 12/2010 liver diagnosis of NHL, NOS [9591/3] is the same primary per the Multiple Primaries Calculator.

There are no timing rules for lymphoma other than rules M8-M13 which deal with the timing of chronic and acute diagnoses.

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.

 2011
20110058 Date of diagnosis/Flag: Will the Date of Diagnosis Flag ever be used if the instructions for coding Date of Diagnosis are followed? See Discussion.

If an abstractor follows the instructions for coding the Date of Diagnosis and can at least estimate a year of diagnosis, in what scenario will the Flag be used?

Per the 2010 SEER Manual,

Page 49 Date of Diagnosis, second paragraph, "Regardless of the format, at least Year of diagnosis must be known or estimated. Year of diagnosis cannot be blank or unknown." The manual gives the following guidelines for coding diagnosis date/flag:

Page 50, Coding Instructions:

3. If no information about the date of diagnosis is available

a. Use the date of admission as the date of diagnosis

b. In the absence of an admission date, code the date of first treatment as the date of diagnosis.

Page 51, Coding Instructions:

9. Estimate the date of diagnosis if an exact date is not available. Use all information available to calculate the month and year of diagnosis.

Page 53, Date of Diagnosis Flag, Coding Instructions:

Always leave blank. Date of Diagnosis will always be a full or partial date recorded.

 The date of diagnosis flag should always be blank. 2011
20110105 Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries should be reported for a bone marrow biopsy diagnosis of "lymphoproliferative disorder, small cell lymphocytic lymphoma/small cell lymphocytic leukemia consistent with marginal zone lymphoma"? According to our hematopoietic/lymphoid neoplasm physician expert, abstract one primary with the histology code 9699/3 [marginal zone lymphoma]. The pathologist is using the expression "small lymphocytic lymphoma" in a descriptive manner (marginal zone lymphoma is comprised of small lymphocytes) rather than in a "diagnostic" manner. 2011
20110005 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the pre-2010 histology coded for a "follicular grade 2, non-Hodgkin lymphoma with marginal zone B-cell differentiation"? See Discussion. This patient was seen in 2010 for the same primary as diagnosed in 2006. The histology was coded to marginal zone lymphoma [9699/3] in 2006. Is this correct? Or should this have been coded as a follicular lymphoma, ignoring the modifying expression "marginal zone B-cell differentiation"?

This is a 2006 diagnosis. The histology code is 9691/3 [follicular lymphoma, grade 2]. Do not code differentiation for hematopoietic cases.

For diagnoses 2010 and forward, a small number of cases of follicular lymphoma do have marginal zone differentiation. However, there is no code for this variant of follicular lymphoma. It would simply be coded as a follicular lymphoma because that is the most accurate histology code available. The marginal zone differentiation is not to be coded as a second primary (marginal zone lymphoma).

2011
20110042 MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: How is histology coded when the initial biopsies of retroperitoneal mass demonstrated non-seminomatous germ cell tumor, but after neoadjuvant chemotherapy the final diagnosis on the radical orchiectomy specimen demonstrated mature teratoma, NOS (not stated to be malignant)? See Discussion. A large retroperitoneal mass was found on CT scan. A biopsy demonstrated non-seminomatous germ cell tumor. The biopsy was done at an outside facility. Neither the CT scan nor biopsy pathology report is available for review. Following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the retroperitoneal mass decreased to 12 cm. Subsequently, the patient had a right radical orchiectomy. The final diagnosis per the pathology reports was a 3.5 cm mature teratoma (NOS, not stated to be "malignant") of right testicle. The patient then had resection of the retroperitoneal mass and biopsies. Pathology showed the "excision" specimen contained 6 benign lymph nodes and two of the "biopsy" specimens showed non-seminomatous germ cell neoplasm with IHC findings suggestive of a mix of embryonal carcinoma and a lesser component of yolk sac tumor.

This is a reportable case. Even though the pathology from the orchiectomy stated mature teratoma, NOS, the presence of lymph node metastases proves that this tumor is malignant. Code the histology as 9065/3 [germ cell tumor non-seminomatous].

The majority of germ cell tumors show the presence of multiple histologies. While the original tumor showed only mature teratoma, there were obviously yolk sac cells that were not detected on the sections taken from the primary tumor. Both teratoma and yolk sac are germ cell tumors. This explains why the pathologist gave you the diagnosis of germ cell tumor. The classification of "non-seminomatous" simply means that there was no seminomas present in the mixture of germ cell histologies.

2011
20110068 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Bladder: Which multiple primary rule is used to determine the number of primaries to accession when a patient has a papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder diagnosed in 2009 followed by a high grade invasive urothelial carcinoma with neuroendocrine features per immunohistochemistry diagnosed in 2010? See Discussion.

A patient has papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder in March of 2009. In June of 2010 the patient has another TURBT that demonstrates a flat in situ and invasive high grade urothelial carcinoma. The path addendum indicates, "Genzyme IHC show results consistent with high grade invasive urothelial carcinoma with neuroendocrine features." Two months later a liver biopsy shows poorly differentiated malignant tumor. The path addendum indicates, "Genzyme IHC results show metastatic poorly differentiated carcinoma with neuroendocrine features, favor bladder primary."

Is the latter a second bladder primary with histology code 8246/3 [neuroendocrine carcinoma]?

NOTE: Neuroendocrine is not listed as an urothelial tumor in Table 1 of MP/H Rules.

Use the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual for cases diagnosed 2007 or later to determine the number of primaries. This is a single primary. The 2010 diagnosis is urothelial carcinoma. The presence of "neuroendocrine features" does not change the histologic category.

The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. Once in the manual, locate the Urinary MP rules under one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.

Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module start at rule M3.

. Bladder tumors with any combination of transitional cell carcinoma and papillary transitional carcinoma are a single primary.

2011
20110070 MP/H Rules/Histology--Endometrium: How is histology coded when clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] is stated to involve a "1.5 cm endometrial polyp"? See Discussion.

The CAP formatted pathology report histology field states, "Clear cell adenocarcinoma, NOS 98310/3)" and the tumor size comment field states, "Carcinoma involves a 1.5 cm endometrial polyp." Does rule H11 apply? Is the histology coded to clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] because this is one histologic type identified in the CAP formatted histology field? Or should rule H12 apply and the histology coded as clear cell adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp [8210/3]? Or should we code the higher histology per rule H17 apply because clear cell adenocarcinoma and adenocarcinoma in a polyp are two specific histologies?

For colon primaries, whether or not the tumor arose in a polyp is quite important. Is this also the case for primaries listed in the Other Sites category?

Code histology to 8310/3 [clear cell adenocarcinoma]. The Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual is the correct source for coding histology for cases diagnosed 2007 or later.

The following steps are used to determine the histology code:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For an endometrial primary, use the Other Sites Histo rules to determine the histology code because endometrium does not have site specific rules.

Go to the SINGLE TUMOR: INVASIVE ONLY module, which starts at Rule H8.

. Code clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] because only one histologic type is identified.

2011
20110130 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: Should a July 2011 left lower lobe mass with adenocarcinoma be accessioned as an additional primary per Rule M7 or as the same primary per Rule M12 if it is diagnosed subsequent to a September 2010 right upper lobe/right middle lobe lobectomy with clear cell adenocarcinoma in one nodule and adenocarcinoma in another nodule? See Discussion.

09/2010: RUL/RML lobectomy: Two separate nodules. One nodule showed clear cell adenocarcinoma, and the other showed adenocarcinoma (NOS). Potential brain metastasis per scan. Patient also received chemotherapy. These are two separate primaries per rule M11.

07/2011: New LLL mass + satellite nodule, biopsy of LLL mass compatible with adenocarcinoma (NOS).

Is the 07/2011 an additional new primary per rule M7? Or is it the same primary as the 09/2010 adenocarcinoma per rule M12?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: The 2011 diagnosis of adenocarcinoma, NOS in the left lower lobe lung is a separate primary.

The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a lung primary, use the Lung Multiple Primary rules to determine the number of primaries.

The 2010 right lung bi-lobectomy showed two separate tumors that were determined to be two primaries: clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] and adenocarcinoma, NOS [8140/3]. The histology of the new left lung mass is adenocarcinoma, NOS [8140/3].

Start at Rule M3 using the MULTIPLE TUMORS module because this patient has more than one tumor. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module (i.e., from Rule M3 to Rule M12 in this case). Stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing. This patient has two tumors in each lung with ICD-O-3 histology codes that are different at the second (xxxx) digit. Abstract the LLL adenocarcinoma as a new primary [C343, 8140/3].

The patient has two tumors in each lung. The right lung showed adenocarcinoma and clear cell adenocarcinoma. The two tumors in the left lung were both adenocarcinomas. Clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310] on the right is different at the second digit from adenocarcinoma [8140] on the left. Rule M12 cannot be applied to this case, because Rule M7 is the first rule that applies to this case when processing the rules in consecutive order.

2011
20110024 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded, and which MP/H rule applies for a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ with clear cell features? See Discussion.

None of the histology rules for in situ breast seem to apply to this case:

  • Rule H3 doesn't seem to apply because "clear cell" is not a specific intraductal carcinoma.

  • Rule H6 doesn't seem to apply because there is not a combination of intraductal and 2 or more specific types of intraductal.

  • Rule H8 wouldn't apply because one of the types is intraductal.

    • For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    Code 8523/2 [intraductal carcinoma mixed with other types of in situ carcinoma]. Rule H6 should apply to this case.

    The wording in the Rule H6 needs to be clarified to handle a case of intraductal carcinoma with one or more subtypes that are not ductal. This will also require a modification to Table 3. A row needs to be added to the table labeled, "Intraductal and one or more of the histologies in Column 2." The Column 3 text for the newly added row would read, " Intraductal mixed with other types of carcinoma." The appropriate histology code to be reported per Column 4 would be 8523/2. This will be done in the next revision of the rules.

    		2011