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: 07/06/2025 07:01 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20190029

Reportability--Testis: Is demarcated scar tissue with atrophic seminiferous tubules and cortical bone consistent with burnt-out germ cell tumor and no evidence of germ cell neoplasia in situ (GCNIS) reportable? See Discussion.

The patient is a 34 year old who presented with testicular pain radiating into the abdomen approximately 1 month before orchiectomy in 2018. CT abdomen/pelvis: Multiple focal sclerotic bone lesions. Given the lack of change from July 2014, these are likely benign bone islands. No adenopathy mentioned. He has no prior history of germ cell tumor nor any surgery for any tumor/cancer before this. Pathology: Testis, left, radical orchiectomy: - Demarcated scar tissue (1.3 cm), with atrophic seminiferous tubules and cortical bone consistent with burnt-out germ cell tumor. No evidence of germ cell neoplasia in situ (GCNIS). - Margins are unremarkable.

Burnt-out germ cell tumor (9080/1) is not reportable. According to WHO Classification of Urinary System and Male Genital Organ, regressed germ cell tumors are germ cell tumors that have undergone partial or complete regression leaving a generally well-delineated nodular focus of scar or fibrosis in the testis.

 2019
20190041

Reportability/Primary Site--Gastrointestinal (GI) Tract: Is a gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) with a single nodule in the small intestine (C17_) and a nodule in the stomach (C16_) reportable per the 2018 SEER Coding Manual reporting instructions for GIST due to the multiple foci or do the multiple foci need to be in the same organ to be reportable? See Discussion.

Example: Small intestine wedge resection with GIST, 1.8 cm in mid small intestine, single nodule. Stomach nodule biopsy: GIST, 0.3 cm. Pathology report comment section indicates the gastric GIST is not staged due to the small size and incidental nature.

Report the GIST in the small intestine. The 2018 SEER Manual says to report GIST when there are multiple foci and to code the primary site to the site where the malignancy originated. Use text fields to record the details, including the stomach nodule.

 2019
20190054

Update to current manual/Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Brain and CNS: Table 6 (Non-Malignant CNS Equivalent Terms and Definitions) lists as a subtype/variant of craniopharyngioma 9350/1. This is not a valid histology per the ICD-O-3 or the 2018 ICD-O-3 Update Table. Is this actually supposed to read, ?

Adamantinomatous craniopharyngioma (9351/1) is a subtype of craniopharygioma. We will correct the Non-Malignant CNS Solid Tumor Rules in the next update.

 2019
20190030

Summary Stage 2018/Extension--Prostate: Can imaging be used to code SEER Summary Stage 2018? MRI shows tumor involved the seminal vesicles and the patient did not have surgery. AJCC does not use imaging to clinically TNM stage a prostate case.

Note 5 was changed in Version 2.0.

Per Note 5 of the 2018 SEER Summary Stage Prostate chapter: Imaging is not used to determine the clinical extension. If a physician incorporates imaging findings into their evaluation (including the clinical T category), do not use this information.

This note was changed in Version 2.0 (2021 changes) to be in line with how AJCC stages; therefore, AJCC and Summary Stage agree.

 2019
20190047

Reportability/Liver: If on imaging, there is no statement of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) score but there is reference that a lesion is in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) 5 category, is hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) reportable based on the OPTN 5 classification? See Discussion.

SINQ 20160008 discusses the reportabilty and diagnosis date for liver primaries where imaging references the LI-RADS category as LR-5 or LR-5V. The 2018 SEER Coding and Staging Manual, Appendix E Reportable Example #16, demonstrates this concept. According to the LI-RADS categories a value of 5 is "definitely HCC" and is concordant with OPTN 5. Often we see only the OPTN categorization.

Report HCC based on the OPTN class of 5. OPTN class 5 indicates that a nodule meets radiologic criteria for HCC. Be sure to document in text fields.

 2019
20190048

Reportability/Histology--Skin: Is malignant hidroacanthoma simplex of the scalp reportable? If so, what is the histology?

Malignant hidroacanthoma simplex of the scalp is reportable. Malignant hidroacanthoma simplex is a synonym for porocarcinoma, 8409/3.

 2019
20190017

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: The term indolent systemic mastocytosis is listed in the 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology Update table with borderline behavior (9741/1). However, smoldering systemic mastocytosis is listed in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Database (Heme DB) as an alternate name for histology 9741/3. Are smoldering systemic mastocytosis and indolent systemic mastocytosis synonymous? If so, should smoldering systemic mastocytosis also be removed from the Heme DB alternate names listing? See Discussion.

In addition to the issue mentioned above, there is a SINQ answer that conflicts with the 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology Update table. SINQ 20130134 indicates indolent systemic mastocytosis is reportable for cases diagnosed 2010 and forward. There is no date restriction indicating the SINQ note applies only for cases diagnosed 2010-2017. Since indolent systemic mastocytosis was changed to borderline (9741/1) for diagnosis year 2018+, should the diagnosis year range be updated for this SINQ answer?

Smoldering systemic mastocytosis is reportable, 9741/3. Indolent systemic mastocytosis is not reportable as of cases diagnosed 2018, 9741/1.

Smoldering systemic mastocytosis and indolent systemic mastocytosis are not synonymous. Smoldering differs from indolent based on diagnostic criteria and burden of disease; indolent is low whereas smoldering is high burden of disease that can progress to aggressive systemic mastocytosis or mast cell leukemia.

We will update SINQ 20130134.

 2019
20190019

Solid Tumor Rules 2018/Histology--Brain and CNS: How is histology coded for a single meningioma tumor when the histology is a meningioma comprised of multiple specific subtypes/variants? See Discussion.

Example: Patient has a left cerebral meningioma that is meningothelial meningioma (9531) and two right-sided cerebral meningiomas: one that is transitional meningioma (9537) and the other that is meningioma, transitional and angiomatous, WHO Grade I. If the histology for the mixed tumor is 9534 (angiomatous meningioma), then there are three primaries. If the histology is 9537 (transitional meningioma), then there are two primaries.

Per Table 6, angiomatous meningioma is 9534/0 and transitional meningioma is 9537/0. There is no mixed histology coding rule, or mixed histology meningioma code. There is also no default rule that would instruct registrars to code the numerically higher ICD-O code or to default to a meningioma (NOS) histology code.

Code the histology for the meningioma, transitional and angiomatous, WHO Grade I to Meningioma, NOS (9530/0). Since a mixed meningioma ICD-O code has not been proposed by WHO, we consulted with our expert neuropathologist.

The other option is to follow back with the pathologist and code what they feel is the predominant type. A new histology rule for coding mixed meningiomas will be added in a future update of CNS rules.

 2019
20190007

Reportability--Skin: Is atypical intradermal smooth muscle neoplasm (AISMN) of the skin reportable? The comment on the path report states: Atypical intradermal smooth muscle neoplasm (AISMN) was previously termed "cutaneous leiomyosarcoma."

Atypical intradermal smooth muscle neoplasm (AISMN), previously termed "cutaneous leiomyosarcoma," is not reportable. It is classified as a borderline, /1, neoplasm.

 2019
20190092

First course Treatment/Lymph Nodes: When a Sentinel Lymph Node (SLN) biopsy ONLY is performed and SLNs are negative, are the SLNs included still counted in Regional Nodes (RNs) Examined and RNs Positive, or are the fields filled in: RLN Examined: 00 (No nodes examined) RLN Positive: 98 (No nodes examined) Date RLN Dissection: 00/00/0000 (No RLN dissection performed) or are the SLN included in the RLN Examined/Positive field but the Date RLN Dissection is 00/00/0000? See Discussion.

According to the 2018 SEER Manual, Sentinel Lymph Nodes (SLNs) Examined and SLNs Positive are included in Regional Nodes (RNs) Examined and RNs Positive when both a sentinel node biopsy procedure and a subsequent dissection procedure are performed or a sentinel node biopsy procedure is performed during the same procedure as the regional node dissection.

If a SLN biopsy is performed but no RLN dissection is performed, assign as follows.

Date of Regional Lymph Node Dissection: Leave blank as this field records the date non-sentinel regional node dissection was performed.

Date of Regional Lymph Node Dissection Flag: Assign code 11 (Not applicable: No proper value is applicable in this context (for example, no regional lymph node dissection was performed; autopsy only cases).

Regional Nodes Examined: Indicate the number of SLNs examined as this is cumulative from all procedures that remove lymph nodes through the completion of surgeries in the first course of treatment.

Regional Nodes Positive: Indicate the number of SLNs positive as this is cumulative from all procedures that remove lymph nodes through the completion of surgeries in the first course of treatment.

 2019