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: 04/30/2026 08:31 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20180030

First Course of Treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Melanoma: How do you code UVB therapy treatment for melanoma?

Code UVB therapy for melanoma as photodynamic therapy under Surgery of Primary Site for skin. Assign code 11 [Photodynamic therapy (PDT)] if there is no pathology specimen. Assign code 21 [Photodynamic therapy (PDT)] if there is a pathology specimen. Use text fields to document details.

 2018
20180100

Reportability/Primary Site--Skin: Is vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia III (VIN III) or associated invasive squamous cell carcinoma reportable when stated to be of the or or ? See Discussion.

Example: Operative report states, partial simple vulvectomy, anoscopy with normal-appearing clitoris, clitoral prepuce, bilateral labia majora, and labia minora. There is a 1.5 x 1 cm raised, hyperpigmented lesion which appears consistent with VIN 3 on the perineal body, just to the right of midline, and not touching the midline. It goes quite close to the anus but is not touching the anus.

Final diagnosis on resection is, Invasive squamous cell carcinoma arising in a background of high-grade squamous intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN III) with the following features: Location: perineum. Focal invasion arising in setting of 1 cm area of VIN III.

Squamous carcinoma and squamous intraepithelial neoplasia III arising in the skin of the perineum (C445) are not reportable. Even though the abreviation "VIN III" is used in this example, this lesion does not involve the vulva. Since it involves the perineum, and skin of perineum is coded to C445, it is not reportable.

Neoplasms arising in skin (C44) with the following histologies are not reportable.

--Malignant neoplasm (8000-8005)

--Epithelial carcinoma (8010-8046)

--Papillary and squamous cell carcinoma (8050-8084)

--Squamous intraepithelial neoplasia III (8077) arising in perianal skin (C445)

--Basal cell carcinoma (8090-8110)

 2018
20180061

Primary Site: How should primary site be coded when there is an invasive tumor in one subsite and an in situ tumor in another subsite of the breast? See Discussion.

The previous SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual included Appendix C that has Coding Guidelines for some sites. The breast guidelines specifically instructed one to code the subsite with the invasive tumor when the pathology report identifies invasive tumor in one subsite and in situ tumor in a different subsite or subsites. The current Breast Solid Tumor Rules Table 1: Primary Site Codes refers one back to the SEER Manual and COC Manual for a source document priority list but does not make mention of invasive vs. in situ on that final version of the source document.

In addition, the Colon Solid Tumor Rules currently contains no Site Coding Section/Table. However, the Lung Solid Tumor Rules do and also refer one to the SEER/COC Manuals for document priority lists. The Urinary Solid Tumor Rules has both the Primary Site Codes Table and an additional section called Priority for Coding Primary Site, which does not reference a document priority list or other manuals. Unfortunately, there is additional information in Appendix C Bladder Coding Guidelines that may have been used in the past regarding site source priority.

Could the remaining applicable Appendix C information be consolidated into the Solid Tumor Rules consistently among all the sites to lessen the need for additional manual referencing? Also, is there a reason one site includes the Priority Site Coding instructions and others do not?

Code the subsite with the invasive tumor as the primary site when the pathology report identifies invasive tumor in one subsite and in situ tumor in a different subsite or subsites as stated in Appendix C, Breast Coding Guidelines, 2018 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual. This statement is unchanged from the previous version; however, the priority list was modified for coding a subsite when there is conflicting information.

The focus of the Solid Tumor Rules is to differentiate between single vs. multiple primaries and to assist with identifying the appropriate histology code. The site tables in the solid tumor rules are a reference only. The site-specific Coding Guidelines assist with additional considerations when abstracting cases.

 2018
20180069

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Behavior--Brain and CNS: The Behavior coding instructions in the Non-Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) Equivalent Terms and Definitions section refer to Table 1 for help coding behavior when the other priority order instructions do not apply; however, the behavior cannot be reasonably determined using Table 1 alone for all WHO Grade I neoplasms. Should an additional default, such as the ICD-O-3 or Tables 5 and 6, be used to determine behavior? See Discussion.

Similar to an issue previously submitted SINQ 20180063, Table 1 (WHO Grades of Select CNS Neoplasms) in the Non-Malignant CNS Equivalent Terms and Definitions section states WHO Grade I tumors are always non-malignant. However, this does not mean that the tumors listed in Table 1 as WHO Grade I are always benign (/0). Some tumors listed with a WHO Grade I have a behavior of /1 (borderline) per the ICD-O-3 and/or Tables 5 and 6. The Behavior coding instructions do not currently indicate these are the appropriate sources to use when the pathologist and/or physician do not comment on the behavior of these tumors. In our area, pathologists do not explicitly state the behavior for these tumors; the pathologist only assigns the WHO Grade.

There is no way for us to know what behavior to assign WHO grade II tumors when the pathologist does not provide that information. Defaulting to either benign or malignant is incorrect. Please follow back with the pathologist to determine behavior.

The behavior must be non-malignant, meaning /0 or /1, or the tumor is a WHO Grade 1, to be reportable as non-malignant CNS tumor. Refer to Table Instructions under Table 1, WHO Grades of Select CNS Neoplasms that says to use non-malignant CNS rules for all WHO Grade 1 tumors and to use the appropriate rules for WHO Grade 2 tumors

Use ICD-O and all updates if not listed in Table 6 according to non-malignant CNS Histology Rule H3 (for single tumor) and Rule H8 (for multiple tumors) when only one histology is present.

 2018
20180019

Marital Status: Is Marital Status always a self-reported status? See Discussion.

The SEER Manual states that Marriage is self-reported for the instruction in code 2, but it does not indicate if all other marital statuses are self-reported.

Examples: How is Marital Status reported for the following situations?

1. Patient with multiple tumors in the database, for the first tumor marital status is reported as married (code 2), for the subsequent tumor, marital status is reported as single (code 1).

2. Patient self- reports as single, but also has children.

3. Patient states they are in common law marriage, but our state is not a common law marriage state.

Marital Status is self-reported because the information is recorded in the medical record based on information obtained from the patient. Use text fields to document relevant information.

Examples

1. Assign code 2 for the first tumor and assign code 1 for the subsequent tumor unless the available information indicates the patient is divorced at the time of the subsequent tumor diagnosis. Patient may self-report single after a divorce. Assign code 4 in that situation.

The code assigned for marital status reflects the patient's marital status at the time of diagnosis for the tumor being abstracted. It is possible that marital status may be different for each tumor if the patient has multiple tumors.

2. If marital status is stated to be single, assign code 1.

3. If marital status is stated to be common law marriage, assign code 2.

Common Law Marriage is defined as a couple living together for a period of time and declaring themselves as married to friends, family, and the community, having never gone through a formal ceremony or obtained a marriage license.

 2018
20180105

2018 Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the appropriate histology code for the case below in the Discussion section? Is there a difference between adenocarcinoma in situ (bronchioloalveolar carcinoma), non-mucinous type (8252/2) and adenocarcinoma in-situ, mucinous? See Discussion.

Procedure: Wedge, resection specimen, Laterality: Right, Tumor site: Right upper lobe, Tumor size: 1.0 cm in greatest dimension, Histologic type: Adenocarcinoma in-situ, mucinous, Histologic grade: N/A, Visceral pleura invasion: Not identified, Tumor extension: N/A, Margins: Uninvolved, Lymphocytosis.

Assign 8253/2 for adenocarcinoma in situ, mucinous. New codes were added in 2018 for mucinous adenocarcinoma in situ for lung cancer only as all cases were not invasive. Pathologist are discouraged from using the term BAC. In-situ lung tumors can now be identified as either mucinous or non-mucinous and the appropriate ICD-O code should be assigned based on diagnosis.

 2018
20180006

MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Should encapsulated papillary carcinoma of the breast with a separate focus of ductal carcinoma in situ be coded as 8050/2 (papillary carcinoma) and staged as in situ? See Discussion.

Pathology--Right breast, lumpectomy with needle localization: Encapsulated papillary carcinoma of the breast. A separate focus of ductal carcinoma in situ is present. Sentinel lymph node, right breast, biopsy: One lymph node, negative for malignancy. No metastatic carcinoma is seen on slides stained with immunostain for cytokeratin (AE1/AE3). Specimen laterality: Right. Tumor size: 1.2 cm. Histologic type: Encapsulated papillary carcinoma. Nuclear grade: Grade 1 (low). Mitotic rate: Score 1. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): DCIS is present. Estimated size (extent) of DCIS: 3 mm. Architectural patterns: Cribriform and papillary. Nuclear grade: grade 1 (low). Necrosis: Not identified. Margins: Margins uninvolved by encapsulated papillary carcinoma. Distance from closest margin: 8 mm, superior Margins uninvolved by DCIS. Distance from closest margin: 11 mm, superior Lymph nodes: Total number of lymph nodes examined (sentinel and nonsentinel): 1. Number of sentinel lymph nodes examined: 1. Number of lymph nodes with tumor cells: 0. Pathologic staging: Primary tumor: See comment. Regional lymph nodes: pN0(i-). Comment: In the WHO Classification of Tumours of the Breast (2012), it is stated that "there is no universal agreement on how to stage encapsulated papillary carcinomas. In the absence of conventional invasive carcinoma, the consensus of the WHO Working Group was that such lesions should be staged and managed as Tis disease."

For cases diagnosed prior to 2018

Code as encapsulated papillary carcinoma, 8504/3; this is a synonym for intracystic carcinoma (WHO Classification of Tumors of the Breast). Stage this case as invasive.

 2018
20180064

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Recurrence--Breast: Does any recurrence within the multiple primaries-stated timeframe count, not those just in the primary site? See Discussion.

A patient has a left breast cancer diagnosed in 2011; then has a "recurrence" in her lymph nodes in 2017. In 2018, she has a new left breast mass that is the same histology and behavior as the 2011 cancer. Based on the 2017 "recurrence" in the lymph nodes, this is not a new breast primary, is that correct?

This is a single primary using 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rule M11. Rule M8 does not apply because the patient was not clinically disease free for 5 years. We are interpreting the 2017 diagnosis as lymph node metastasis from the 2011 breast cancer diagnosis.

 2018
20180090

Reportability--Ovary: Is an ovarian serous borderline tumor with microinvasion with serous tumor aggregates (3 mm in greatest dimension) in 2 of 10 pelvic lymph nodes reportable? See Discussion.

SINQ 20170043 is a similar question about an ovarian mucinous borderline tumor with microinvasion, but the answer seems to be specifically referencing mucinous tumors only. It is unclear if that SINQ could be applied to this case. In addition, we were not sure how to interpret the nodal involvement. The physician assessment after surgery was low grade serous carcinoma, chemo not recommended and letrozole started.

Ovarian serous borderline tumor with node implants is not reportable; it is a borderline neoplasm. However, if the oncologist believes he or she is dealing with a low grade serous carcinoma rather than a borderline tumor, this case is reportable. We recommend that you determine whether the diagnosis of low grade serous carcinoma, chemotherapy not recommended, is based on the pathological findings or on something else before reporting this case.

 2018
20180108

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: What is the correct histology of a lung mass with a CT-directed fine needle aspirate "positive for malignancy, favor squamous cell carcinoma. See Discussion.

Immunostain results of the malignant cells show strong staining with p63 and negative staining with TTF-1 and Napsin. Rare cells stain with CK7. Findings are most compatible with squamous cell carcinoma. The patient is treated as if he has squamous cell carcinoma. The new histology coding rules say you cannot use ambiguous terms which modify the histology to code the histology. So is this 8010/3?

Code histology to SCC.

The lung rules were updated 10/12/2018 to include clarification on using ambiguous terminology to code histology. See page 32.

Note 2: Histology described by ambiguous terminology is coded when a case is

* Clinically confirmed by a physician (attending, pathologist, oncologist, pulmonologist, etc.)

* Patient is treated for the histology described by an ambiguous term

Your case meets both of these criteria so code histology to SCC.

 2018