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: 02/27/2026 06:01 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20110028 MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: How many primaries and what histology(ies) are coded when the pathology report shows a, 1.9 cm Hurthle cell carcinoma, probable follicular variant of papillary carcinoma, with Hurthle cell features and a 2 mm focus of follicular variant, papillary carcinoma? See Discussion.

Right lobectomy pathology report final diagnosis states: 1.9 cm Hurthle cell carcinoma (see comment). Comment: histologic diagnosis Hurthle cell carcinoma, probable follicular variant of papillary carcinoma with Hurthle cell features. Subsequent left lobectomy one week later showed a 2 mm microscopic focus of follicular variant of papillary carcinoma, encapsulated.

None of the rules seems to fit this scenario. The number of primaries reported for this case depends on the histology coded for each tumor. Does Rule M6 (Follicular and papillary tumors in the thyroid within 60 days of diagnosis are a single primary.) or M17 (Tumors with ICD-O-3 histology codes that are at the first (xxx), second (xxx) or third (xxx) number are multiple primaries.) apply? Does the case represent a single primary because both are papillary/follicular tumors or two primaries because one is Hurthle cell carcinoma, and one is papillary/follicular carcinoma (different histology at second digit)?

To code the histology for the larger tumor in the right lobe, which rule do we apply? Rule H11 (single histology of Hurthle cell carcinoma [8290] per path final diagnosis), H15 (tumor has both follicular and papillary carcinoma [8340], per path comment), or H17 (numerically higher code for 8340 because there is both Hurthle cell and papillary/follicular carcinoma)?

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 Hurthle cell carcinoma is a synonym for follicular carcinoma according to the WHO. See page 67 of the 2004 WHO Classification of Tumours of Endocrine Organs. The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a thyroid primary, use the Other Sites MP rules under one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) to determine the number of primaries because the thyroid does not have site specific rules.

Start with the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module from Rule M3 to Rule M18. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.

. Follicular and papillary tumors in the thyroid within 60 days of diagnosis are a single primary. The patient has a tumor in each lobe of the thyroid with the same histology. Abstract a single primary for this patient.

Determine the histology code. For a thyroid, use one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Other Sites Histo rules to determine histology because thyroid primaries do not have site specific rules.

Start with the SINGLE TUMOR: INVASIVE ONLY module, Rule H8. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module from Rule H8 to Rule H18. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.

. Code follicular and papillary carcinoma of the thyroid to papillary carcinoma, follicular variant (8340). Use the comment to code the histology for the right lobectomy. "Probable" is an acceptable ambiguous term to use for coding histology. (See the Ambiguous Terms Used to Code Histology section of the General Instructions in the MP/H manual.)

 2011
20110122 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is histology coded to AML, NOS [9861/3] for a bone marrow biopsy with a diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia evolving from myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) if the cytogenetics revealed trisomy 13? See Discussion. This patient actually had no prior diagnosis of MDS. The bone marrow biopsy revealed AML evolving from MDS. Cytogenetics revealed trisomy 13 with no other abnormalities. Does the presence of a trisomy 13 change the histology to a more specific subtype of AML?

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

This should be accessioned as a single primary per Rule M8 which states to abstract as a single primary and code the acute neoplasm when both a chronic (MDS) and an acute (AML) neoplasm are diagnosed simultaneously or within 21 days AND there is documentation of only one positive bone marrow biopsy, lymph node biopsy, or tissue biopsy. Code the histology to 9895/3 [acute myeloid leukemia with myelodysplasia-related changes].

NOTE: When you search with quotation marks around the phrase, the database will only return results with that exact wording. To only return results for the expression trisomy 13, enter in the Heme DB. In this case, a search for "trisomy 13" returns no results. Therefore, it does not impact the coding of histology for this case.

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
20110020 Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is cancer status to be coded when a patient diagnosed with MDS, undergoes treatment, but the MDS subsequently transforms to AML? If the bone marrow no longer shows evidence of MDS, the cancer status for the MDS is disease-free. When cancer status is coded as disease-free (NED), it means that currently there is no clinical evidence of this disease (MDS). 2011
20110048 First course treatment--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is a "donor lymphocyte infusion" that is used in the treatment of CLL coded?

Donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) is coded as immunotherapy. The lymphocytes are donated by the same person who donated the original stem cell transplant. The lymphocyte infusion creates an immune response in which the T-cells are activated to attack the cancer cells.

See "Treatments" for CLL/SLL (9823/3)

 2011
20110012 Reportability--Sarcoma: Is "atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma" reportable? See Discussion.

The final diagnosis for a soft tissue excision is, "atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma". The Comment section states, "Atypical lipomatous tumor/well differentiated liposarcoma has a significant risk for local recurrence, but no metastatic potential."

Per the 2010 SEER Manual, page 3, example 4: The pathologist makes the final decision about the behavior for a particular case. In this case, the pathologist uses both a reportable and a non-reportable term in the final diagnosis and in the comment section of the pathology report. Does the pathologist's comment impact the behavior and reportability of this tumor?

 For cases diagnosed 1/1/2014 and later: Atypical lipomatous tumor (8850/1) is not reportable. If the pathologist uses the term "well-differentiated liposarcoma" (8851/3) report the case. Use of this terminology indicates a less favorable prognosis. 2011
20110015 Primary site/Histology: Do the 4/1/09 changes in the ICD-O-3 Site/Type Validation table regarding the coding of primary site for intestinal type adenocarcinoma mean that the former valid site/histology combinations are now impossible and require review from a given diagnosis date forward? See Discussion.

Per the SEER Errata for ICD-O-3 Site/Type Validation List, April 1, 2009, adenocarcinoma, intestinal type, was removed as a valid site/histology combination for the following primary sites: C150-C155, C158-C159, C170-C173, C178-C179, C180-C189, C199, C209, C210-C212, C218.

  • Does this mean that these combinations cannot be used? If so, then why is an override allowed for these site/type combinations? Shouldn't these site/type combinations be added to the impossible site/type combinations table?

  • SINQ 20081085 states that "8144/3 will be removed from the valid site/histology list for large intestine, small intestine, and rectum." It appears from the Site/Type Validation table that a decision was made to also remove esophagus sites as a valid combination with histology code of 8144. Please explain the rationale.

  • Cases that were miscoded to 8144/3 will need to be identified for correction. What date of diagnosis should be the reference point used in making the necessary corrections related to this change? Do we only need to review cases diagnosed 1/1/2009 forward or should all cases be corrected regardless of date of diagnosis?

    • The site/type edit identifies unlikely combinations of primary site and histologic type.

  • Intestinal type adenocarcinoma occurs in the stomach. It would be rare in another primary site, but not impossible.

  • It was decided that all digestive organ sites, except stomach, would be removed from the list. That is why esophagus is not listed as a valid site.

  • The site/type edit is for all years. Cases for all years have to be reviewed for combinations of site and type that are no longer on the list. If it is documented in the medical record that the primary site and histology combination are valid, set the over-ride flag so that the case will not come up for review again.

    		• 2011
    		20110149

    Ambiguous Terminology/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are the histology and diagnostic confirmation to be coded when the pathology report's final diagnosis is "plasma cell dyscrasia consistent with plasma cell myeloma" and the physician subsequently states this diagnosis was plasma cell myeloma? See Discussion.

    Pathologists often use the diagnosis "plasma cell dyscrasia" followed by an ambiguous term such as "consistent with" or "favors" with a more specific histology such as "plasma cell myeloma." Per initial training for Hematopoietic, ambiguous terminology is not used to code the histology for Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms. Should the histology be coded as plasma cell dyscrasia (which is not found in the Heme DB or Manual) because the pathology report uses ambiguous terminology to describe the plasma cell myeloma?

    If the physician subsequently states the diagnosis is "plasma cell myeloma" in a note following the pathology, should the histology be coded as plasma cell myeloma based on that diagnosis as there was no ambiguous terminology used?

    How is the diagnostic confirmation coded for this case? Should this be a positive histology diagnosis (diagnostic confirmation code 1) if the pathology diagnosis uses ambiguous terminology only?

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

    The histology is coded as Plasma cell myeloma [9732/3]. The diagnostic confirmation is coded to 1 [positive histology].

    Under the Definitive Diagnostic Methods section in the Heme DB it indicates that a bone marrow aspiration and bone marrow biopsy are procedures used to diagnose this disease process. This patient's diagnosis was based on the pathology (presumably from a bone marrow biopsy).

    NOTE: This is a reportable case. Ambiguous terminology is used to accession cases (determine reportability) because it has been used for over 30 years to do so. Any deviation from using ambiguous terminology to determine case reportability would cause the reporting of incidence counts to vary. In this case, there was a reportable, ambiguous terminology diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma on the pathology report; as well as a reportable physician's statement/diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma.

    Ambiguous terminology, however, is not used to report a more specific diagnosis for the Heme & Lymphoid neoplasms. For example, if the pathology report final diagnosis was "Myeloproliferative neoplasm, probably Polycythemia Vera" the histology would be coded as myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable [9975/3]. The ambiguous terminology indicates that the genetic testing, immunophenotyping, etc., probably are not complete or are not diagnostic of the more specific disease. Wait to code the histology until there is a definite diagnosis given.

    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
    		20110120 Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: How is this field coded for a BILATERAL nipple sparing mastectomy given that SINQ 20110094 indicates that a nipple sparing mastectomy should be coded to 30 [subcutaneous mastectomy] but there is no code for bilateral subcutaneous mastectomies? The Surgery of Primary Site field reflects the type of surgery performed on the primary site. In this case, a nipple sparing mastectomy should be coded to 30 [subcutaneous mastectomy]. If the details of the case indicate this is a single primary involving both breasts, code removal of involved contralateral breast under the data item Surgical Procedure/Other Site. 2011
    		20110078 MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: What is the histology code for "high-grade urothelial carcinoma, plasmacytoid variant"? See Discussion. Per the MP/H Manual, Urinary Equivalent Terms & Definitions, Table 1, plasmacytoid is a specific type of Urothelial/Transitional Cell Tumor. What is the correct histology, and rule used, when a bladder resection pathology report states, "high-grade urothelial carcinoma, plasmacytoid variant"?

    Code the histology to 8082/3 [urothelial carcinoma, plasmacytoid].

    The Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual is the correct source for coding histology for cases diagnosed 2007 or later. Unfortunately, in this case there is no current rule that directs you appropriately to Table 1 from Rule H7 to find this histology combination. We need to add an example under Rule H7 that instructs you to "See Table 1" for an urothelial carcinoma diagnosis that mentions a more specific cell type (e.g., plasmacytoid). We will add a reference to Table 1 in Rule H7 in the updates to MP/H Rules.

    		2011
    		20110084 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is histology coded to 9684/3 [malignant lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell, immunoblastic NOS] for a biopsy that reveals "diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, immunoblastic variant"?

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

    Code histology to 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma]. Code 9684/3 [malignant lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell, immunoblastic NOS] is obsolete for cases diagnosed 2010 and later per the Heme DB.

    Under the Definitions section in the Heme DB, it states that this is a lymphoma with diffuse proliferation of large neoplastic B lymphoid cells with nuclear size exceeding macrophage nuclei, more than twice size of normal lymphocytes. Normal architecture of node or extranodal tissue replaced in diffuse pattern. Morphologic variants: centroblastic, immunoblastic, plasmablastic, T-cell/histiocyte-rich, anaplastic.

    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