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 05:32 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20180109

Date of diagnosis/Ambiguous terminology--Cervix Uteri: Is the date of diagnosis of a cervical pap smear done in December 2017, that states high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion with features suspicious for invasion, followed by a cervical biopsy in 2018 positive for squamous cell carcinoma, in 2017? Is the ambiguous term used in the cytology in 2017 (suspicious for invasion) to determine diagnosis as the SEER manual states to use the ambiguous cytology as the date of diagnosis if confirmed later.

Updated for cases diagnosed 2022 or later

For cases diagnosed in 2022 or later, see the instructions in the SEER manual under Reportability and Date of Diagnosis for ambiguous cytology.

 2018
20180082

Summary Stage Manual 2018 "Lymphoma: SEER Summary Stage 2000 states: For lymphomas, any mention of lymph nodes is indicative of involvement and is used to determine the number and location of lymph node chains involved (see lymphoma scheme). This statement is not in SEER Summary Stage 2018. Does that mean we follow rules #4-7, pages 14-15, under Code 3: Regional Lymph Nodes only, for every site, including lymphoma?

The following statement "Any mention of the terms including fixed, matted, mass in the hilum, mediastinum, retroperitoneum, and/or mesentery, palpable, enlarged, shotty, lymphadenopathy are all regarded as involvement for lymphomas when determining appropriate code," is included in EOD Primary Tumor and is applicable to Summary Stage 2018.

The statement will be added as note 4 to the Lymphoma Summary Stage chapter. This will be included in the 2019 update (estimated release January 2019).

 2018
20180050

Reportability/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis reportable? See Discussion.

We noticed this term was added to the most recent version of the Heme Database (DB) as an alternate name for chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma; however we do not recall being notified that this was a new reportable term for code 9823 and the term was not included in the 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology updates. The Definition in the Heme DB for Chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic leukemia (CLL/SLL) includes information that the term was added in the 2016 WHO revision, thus would be reportable back to 2016, is that correct? In addition, the Definition seems to be describing it as a precursor condition to CLL and may never actually evolve into CLL, so it is unclear if this term should really be reportable.

Example: 09/08/2016 Onc Note: A/P: monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis of undetermined significance (MBL): I reviewed with him the results of the bone marrow biopsy. Interestingly, there is no evidence of abnormal plasma cell population by flow cytometry and immunohistochemistry. Nevertheless, flow cytometry does demonstrate a very small population of abnormal and monoclonal B-cell lymphocyte population with immunophenotype consistent with CLL/SLL. Given the very low number of the abnormal B cells, this can be categorized as monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL). I recommend surveillance visit in one year.

9/12/2017 Onc note: A/P: Monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis of undetermined significance (MBL) and IgM MGUS. No symptoms concerning for active disease or progression. Explained that MBL is a very indolent process. Patients with CLL-phenotype MBL progress to CLL at a rate of ~1-2 percent per year. Follow-up in 1 year. Is this case reportable?

Monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis is not a reportable condition. This term will be removed from 9823/3 since it is a /1 (has it's own code). This will become much more clear once we get the new WHO Heme terms into the database.

 2018
20180001

Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Small intestine: Is this case reportable? Widely metastatic gastrointestinal stomal tumor (GIST) was diagnosed at an out-of-state facility in 2017 and referred back to a hospital in our state for chemotherapy where there is a history of a small bowel resection of GIST of uncertain malignant potential (8936/1) doneat the hospital in 2003. If so, is the diagnosis date 2003 or 2017? See Discussion.

The hospital registrar reports that the case was identified at the hospital because of the referral for chemotherapy for the metastatic GIST. The records from the out-of-state hospital mentioned a history of a small bowel resection in 2003 for a borderline tumor. The registrar went back through the hospital's old records and found the surgery was done for GIST of low malignant potential at her facility. The question is whether to report the case or not, and if reported, is 2003 the diagnosis date.

The rules say to change the behavior and backdate the diagnosiswhen a tumor is presumed benign and islater diagnosed as malignant. Another problem for this case is that the out-of-state hospital did not review the slides from the 2003 surgery.

Report the case with a diagnosis date of 2017. The 2003 diagnosis was not reviewed, and there are no physician statements that cancer was present in 2003, or that the metastases are attributable to the 2003 diagnosis. Document the details of the case in text fields.

 2018
20180026

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned when a prophylactic mastectomy reveals a final diagnosis of invasive tubular carcinoma, but the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Protocol includes ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) sized separately and it is not clear if these are different tumors? See Discussion.

The patient was incidentally diagnosed with cancer on a prophylactic mastectomy, so there are no positive imaging findings to correlate the number of tumors/masses. The final diagnosis was invasive tubular carcinoma, and referred to the CAP Protocol. The CAP notes: However, it does not specify whether the single contiguous focus also includes the in situ component. The CAP goes on to note DCIS was present: The gross description does not provide any indication of either a single or multiple tumors/masses/lesions, though it was referred to as "Lesion 1" in the gross description with no indication of other lesions.

The format of the CAP Protocol frequently does not specify whether the DCIS is a separate measured tumor, or if it is a component of the invasive tumor. This makes it difficult to determine whether the DCIS should be a separate primary when the invasive tumor is not also a type of ductal carcinoma. Per both the 2007 MP/H and 2018 Solid Tumor Rules, an invasive tubular carcinoma and a ductal carcinoma in situ would be multiple primaries if they were multiple tumors. Should we default to Rule M1: Abstract a single primary when it is not possible to determine if there is a single or multiple tumors? Or should we assume these are separate tumors because they were both sized, the focality only described a single invasive tumor, and the tumors are not both ductal carcinomas?

Accession a single primary using Solid Tumor Rule M3. Based on the information provided, this was described as "Lesion 1' with no other lesions noted in the gross description. If the DCIS was a separate tumor, this would have been noted by the pathologist.

Reminder, the breast CAP protocol is a checklist for pathologists to note their findings while reviewing the slides and/or specimen. The findings and notes should be consolidated into a final/synoptic report.

 2018
20180076

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Head & Neck: Where does cytology rank on the Priority Order for Using Documentation to Identify Histology for Head and Neck primaries? See Discussion.

Cytology is not listed in the Priority Order for Using Documentation to Identify Histology (Histology Coding Rules) in the Head and Neck schema. Other schemas do include cytology in the hierarchy below tissue from a biopsy or resection. Cytology is often less specific than histology, so one would expect cytology to be listed below tissue in this hierarchy. Was this an oversight? Or would cytology be equivalent to histology if it provided the most specific histology for the case?

Instruction #5 in the Priority Order for Using Documentation to Identify Histology of the Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules, Item 5.B., refers to cytology in the documentation though cytology is not listed before this. In H&N tumors, cytology is usually performed on lymph nodes and seldom on a primary tumor. Cytology will be added to H&N in the next update.

 2018
20180045

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Breast: The Histology Coding Instructions for breast cancer indicate the term type is not used to code histology unless documented to be greater than or equal to 90% of the tumor. Does this also apply if the format of pathology reports submitted in the College of American Pathologists (CAP) protocol from a specific facility always describes the histology under the heading, Histologic type: ___? See Discussion.

For certain facilities in our area, the breast pathology reports using a CAP protocol format are formatted as follows; the Final Diagnosis will state Infiltrating carcinoma with the following features. The features list the specific tumor characteristics required in the CAP protocol formatting. The histology is always displayed in the list form and specified as Histologic type: (for example, Histologic type: Ductal carcinoma). Is this specific histology really to be ignored because it is preceded by the word type even if this is just a consequence of the pathology report formatting?

In the CAP protocol, the term Histologic Type is a label where the histology that corresponds to the largest carcinoma is collected. According to the CAP protocol for invasive breast cancer, the histologic type corresponds to the largest carcinoma. If there are smaller carcinomas of a different type, this information should be included under "Additional Pathologic Findings." The findings noted in the Final Diagnosis, Histologic Type, and Additional Path Findings of the protocol should be used to determine the histology.

When there are multiple histologies and

1) the subtype or variant is listed as 90% when there is a Not Otherwise Specified/No Specific Type (NOS/NST) and a subtype, or

2) the subtype/variant histology reflects the majority of the tumor when there are two or more different histologies (two or more distinct subtypes)

Code the subtype/variant; otherwise, use the Specific and Not Otherwise Specified/No Specific Type (NOS/NST) Terms and Code listed in Table 2 (columns 1 and 2) of the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules for Breast Cancer.

 2018
20180096

Reportability/Histology--Small intestine: Is a neuroendocrine microtumor of the duodenum a reportable tumor? See Discussion.

This comment was added to the pathology report by the pathologist: A focus of neuroendocrine microtumor measured 350 micrometers, qualifying as a neuroendocrine microtumor. Focus was immunohistochemically positive for chromogranin and synaptophysin and negative for gastrin. The Ki-67/CD45 immunostain showed <1% positivity in microtumor.

Neuroendocrine microtumor of the duodenum is reportable as 8240/3. "Microtumor" pertains to the size/amount of NET and not to a histologic type.

 2018
20180065

Immunotherapy: Is immunotherapy ever palliative treatment according to any oncologists or SEER?

Any treatment that destroys or modifies cancer tissue should be recorded as the appropriate type of treatment -- chemo, immuno, etc. Even if immunotherapy is given for symptoms/palliative treatment, it is likely to kill off tumor cells.

 2018
20180093

2018 Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: What is the histology and number of primaries for a lung case diagnosed in 2018 with adenocarcinoma with acinar predominant pattern on biopsy, and subsequent lobectomy showing adenocarcinoma with solid growth pattern and separate adenocarcinoma with lepidic predominant pattern? Should this be coded as one primary with an adenocarcinoma, NOS (8140/3) histology since we cannot use pattern or predominant, based on the histologic type listed in the synoptic report, and the fact it states synchronous primary tumors in the same lobe. See Discussion.

02/18 RUL biopsy: Moderatley differentiated adenocacarcinoma with acinar predominant pattern

04/18 RUL lobectomy: 6.5cm poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma with solid growth pattern and 1.1 cm separate adenocarcinoma with lepidic predominant pattern

Synoptic report:

Procedure: Lobectomy

Specimen Laterality: Right Tumor

Tumor Site: Upper lobe

Histologic Type: Invasive adenocarcinoma, solid predominant

Tumor Size: 6.5 Centimeters (cm)

Tumor Focality: Synchronous primary tumors in same lobe

Lymph Nodes Number of Lymph Nodes Involved: 0

Number of Lymph Nodes Examined: 12

Nodal Stations Examined: 4R: Lower paratracheal; 8R: Para-esophageal (below carina); 10R: Hilar; 7: Subcarinal

Pathologic Stage Classification (pTNM, AJCC 8th Edition)

Primary Tumor (pT): pT3

Regional Lymph Nodes (pN): pN0

This is a single primary per Lung rule M7. First determine the histology for each tumor. Both tumors are coded 8140/3 because the histologies are a PATTERN. Reference: Coding Multiple Histologies (precedes histology rules) Instruction 2 says do not code pattern . If the word pattern was not in the diagnosis, you would code the specific histology.

 2018