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: 11/22/2025 02:13 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20140056

MP/H--Bladder: Are 8130 and rule H12 correct for this case? Bladder with papillary urothelial carcinoma with squamous cell differentiation.

Rule H8 applies, code the histology with the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code which is papillary transitional cell carcinoma, 8130.

Based on the information provided, there is a single bladder tumor, papillary urothelial carcinoma with squamous cell differentiation. Urinary sites rule H12 does not apply because this is a single tumor, not multiple tumors. In the single tumor H rules, H3 does not apply as this rule does not include papillary transitional cell carcinoma. Rule H4 is papillary carcinoma or papillary transitional cell carcinoma and refers you to Table 1. Table 1 does not list papillary urothelial carcinoma with squamous cell differentiation because there is no ICD-O-3 code for this histology. Table 1 does list transitional cell carcinoma with squamous differentiation as code 8120, however, the papillary transitional cell carcinoma is the higher code, 8130. We will review this situation for the next version of the rules.

2014
20140039

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a statement of "JAK-2 positive polycythemia" reportable? See discussion.

Polycythemia, NOS is not reportable. However, there is a statement in the Heme Manual Glossary for JAK2 that states, "When JAK2 is positive, the MPN is definitely reportable." Does a positive JAK 2 always mean there is a reportable myeloproliferative disorder or must there also be an associated statement of a reportable neoplasm (e.g., myeloproliferative disorder, polycythemia vera, or essential thrombocythemia)?

A positive JAK 2 does not always mean there is a reportable myeloproliferative disorder. There must also be an associated statement of a reportable neoplasm (e.g., myeloproliferative disorder, polycythemia vera, or essential thrombocythemia). The glossary entry will be clarified.

2014
20140078

Surgery of Primary Site--Bladder: Is any mention of cautery in the gross description of pathology for a TURBT specimen sufficient to code 22 (excisional biopsy with electrocautery), or does there need to be a statement in the operative report that electrocautery was performed? See discussion.

Often, pathology for TURBT with non-invasive papillary TCC includes a gross description with a variety of cautery descriptions. For example, "received are three cautery roughened gray-pale pink tissue fragments.” However, the operative report is documented as a "TURBT" with no further description of the procedure.

Assign code 22 when cautery is mentioned n the gross description of pathology for a TURBT specimen.

2014
20140031

MP/H Rules: Regarding rules for Renal Pelvis, ureters, bladder & urethra - Please clarify Rule M8. Rule M8 references Table 1, but table 1 is a table of histologies not primary sites, Rule M8 also seems to contradict Table 2 and Rule M10. Does it matter where the first primary is, ie bladder then urethra or bladder then renal pelvis?

Table 2 does not apply to diagnoses in 2007 and later. A watermark over (or near) Table 2 states "Do not use for cases diagnosed on or after 2007." Table 2 lists previous SEER site groupings for cases prior to 2007.

The MP/H rules are in hierarchical order. Use the first rule that applies. When Rule M8 applies, there is no need to check Rule M10. Rule M8 is for the urinary sites listed and derives single primary. Rule M10 is for all sites, except the sites listed in Rule M8, and derives multiple primaries.

It does not matter where the first primary is, i.e. bladder then urethra or bladder then renal pelvis. If there are two or more tumors in two or more of these four sites listed in Rule M8 with histologies listed on Table 1, abstract as a single primary.

2014
20140015 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is there an instruction missing under Rule PH22 of the 2014 Heme Manual that addresses when it might be appropriate to code primary site to C779 for a Stage II lymphoma? See discussion. It appears there is no instruction under PH22 that covers Example 5 (The patient has a history of Stage II lymphoma, no other information is available). All the bulleted instructions are for organ and lymph node combination involvement. Was the 2010 Heme Rule PH31 (Code the primary site to lymph nodes, NOS (C779) when lymph node(s) are involved but no primary site/particular lymph node region is identified) supposed to be listed under PH22? There does appear to be an empty bullet on the current web version.

The 5th bullet under Rule PH 22 was inadvertently omitted. A corrected version of the Heme manual will be posted soon. Thank you for identifying this omission.

In the meantime, please add the following to PH22:

Code the primary site to lymph nodes, NOS (C779) when lymph node(s) are involved but no primary site/particular lymph node region is identified.

 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
20140086

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Colon: Does rule M7 apply here (A frank malignant or in situ adenocarcinoma and an in situ or malignant tumor in a polyp are a single primary)? Can the frank malignant adenocarcinoma be any specific type of adenocarcinoma for this rule to apply?

A patient has 2 synchronous tumors in the ascending colon. The first is grade 3 adenocarcinoma with signet ring differentiation and focal mucinous features (8255/3). The second is grade 2-3 adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma (8263/3).

M7 applies to this case. The frank adenocarcinoma can be a specific type of adenocarcinoma.

2014
20140062

MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: Does lung MP/H Rule M6 apply to synchronous tumors only, metachronous tumors only, or both? See discussion.

How many primaries should be reported when a patient has a history of RLL adenocarcinoma diagnosed on 10/8/2009 followed by diagnoses of LUL adenocarcinoma on 10/5/2012 and a RUL adenocarcinoma on 3/26/2014?

We applied Rule M6 to the 10/5/2012 diagnosis of LUL adenocarcinoma and reported an additional primary. However, we are unsure how to apply the MP/H rules for the 3/26/2014 RUL adenocarcinoma.

Should we apply Rule M8 because the RUL adenocarcinoma was diagnosed more than 3 years after the original RLL adenocarcinoma and then apply M6 because the RUL and LUL indicate a single tumor in each lung (resulting in a third primary); or does Rule M12 apply because there has been more than a single tumor in each lung (no new primary)?

Assuming each of the three diagnoses is a single tumor and there are no other tumors in either lung, abstract two primaries: 1 in the RLL diagnosed on 10/8/2009 and 1 in the LUL diagnosed on 10/5/2012. Do not abstract the 3/26/2014 diagnosis as a new primary.

Rule M6 applies to the 2009 and 2012 diagnoses. Rule M12 applies to the 2012 and 2014 diagnoses. Do not compare the 2014 diagnosis to the 2009 diagnosis. Always compare the latest diagnosis to the most recent previous diagnosis in cases like this.

2014
20140003 Surgery of Primary Site/Surgical Procedure of Other Sites--Endometrium: How are these fields coded for an endometrial primary when the patient undergoes a radical tumor cytoreduction including modified radical hysterectomy, BSO, omentectomy, resection of intra-abdominal and intrapelvic implants, and partial cystectomy? See discussion.

When other regional sites (besides the omentum) are removed with the primary site, how is Surgical Procedure of Other Site coded? There is no cytoreduction surgery code for endometrial primaries, and this patient does not appear to qualify for any of the specific pelvic exenteration codes.

Per SINQ 20091118, an omentectomy is not coded in the Surgical Procedure of Other Site field when it is performed with a hysterectomy.

 In general, record surgery of sites/organs not covered in the surgery of primary site codes under surgery of other site. For this case, code the partial cystectomy under surgery of other site. As you point out, the omentectomy is not recorded under surgery of other site when performed with a hysterectomy for an endometrial primary. 2014
20140033

Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Prostate: Can you clarify why a prostate biopsy diagnosis of “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” is not reportable while a biopsy diagnosis of “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable? See discussion.

SINQ 20091103 states that prostate biopsies showing “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” are NOT reportable. However, SINQ 20071056 states that “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable. This appears to be an issue of semantics with no clearly outlined method to determine reportability of such cases.

We have two recent cases with similar semantic issues and want to know whether they are reportable.

1) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation, highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma, with quality/quantity insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer.”

2) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma but due to the small size of focus, findings are not definitively diagnostic.”

Both case examples provided are reportable using instructions for ambiguous terminology. The diagnoses are qualified by the words "highly suspicious" because neither diagnosis is definitive ("insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer" and "not definitively diagnostic."). However, we follow our instructions for interpreting ambiguous terminology and report these cases.

SINQ 20091103 differs slightly. The final diagnosis in 20091103 declares unequivocally "not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma." That phrase in the final diagnosis negates the ambiguous terminology. The situation in 20071056 is similar to the two examples above - the ambiguous terminology instructions apply.

2014