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: 09/12/2025 09:57 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20031125

Histology/Reportability/Behavior Code--Testis: Is a mature teratoma that is metastatic to lymph nodes reportable? See Description.

Pathology report states, "Histologic sections reveal lymph node metastases, consisting predominantly of mature teratoma. In addition, there are cells scattered through the fibrous stroma which exhibit mild cytologic atypia but have low N:C ratios. The largest metastasis grossly measures 10cm. In addition extracapsular extension is identified. Diagnosis: Lymph Nodes--Metastatic Testicular Carcinoma Involving Multiple Lymph Nodes." The morphology code for mature teratoma is 9080/0. The pathologist does not classify this as an immature teratoma (9080/3). Is this reportable?

Yes, this metastatic teratoma is reportable.

This is a malignant teratoma by virtue of the lymph node metastases. Code the histology as 9080/3 [Teratoma, malignant, NOS]. Primary site is testis [C62_].

 2003
20031100

Date of diagnosis: Can a positive VMA:HVA test be used as a date of diagnosis for neuroblastoma? See Description.

Rubin's Clinical Oncology states: Both the catecholamines and their metabolites are used as markers for neuroblastoma, with vanillylmandelic acid (VMA) and homovanillic acid (HVA) being the most commonly used. While their absolute values are not of prognostic significance, a higher VMA:HVA ratio suggests a better prognosis for patients with disseminated disease.

Updated answer July 2024

No. Do not code the neuroblastoma diagnosis date from only the date of an elevated urine catecholamine test (VMA or HVA). Neuroblastoma diagnosis should be made on the basis of tissue biopsy or bone marrow aspiration along with elevated urinary catecholamines. Elevated urinary catecholamines alone are not diagnostic of neuroblastoma.

 2003
20031021 Primary Site--Head & Neck: What is the anatomical distinction among tonsillar fossa, tonsillar pillar, and tonsil NOS? Operative findings describe a right tonsil three times the size of the left tonsil. Tonsil is dissected from the tonsillar fossa. There appeared to be no involvement of tumor below the tonsillar capsule.

The tonsil lies in an indentation called the tonsillar fossa. The tonsillar fossa is bordered on either side by the tonsillar pillars. The tonsillar pillars are part of the supporting structure of the throat opening.

Code C09.9 [Tonsil NOS] as the primary site for the case above.

 2003
20031092

Histology (Pre-2007)/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: How is the histology of invasive small cell carcinoma of lobular histogenesis coded?

Could high grade ductal carcinoma in situ, comedo type be a recurrence of ductal carcinoma diagnosed 18 years earlier?

Is "invasive small cell carcinoma of lobular histogenesis, high grade ductal carcinoma in situ, comedo type" one or two primaries? See Description.

 A patient was diagnosed in 1984 with 1st breast primary, histology was ductal carcinoma, T1N0, LIQ left breast. In 2002 a mass was found on mammogram, MRM with axillary sampling performed. Histology was invasive small cell carcinoma of lobular histogenesis, high grade ductal carcinoma in situ, comedo type, nuclear grade 3/3, T2N1, UOQ left breast. Is the ductal carcinoma in situ recurrent disease from the 1st primary? Does it go with the lobular histogenesis, i.e., lobular carcinoma and DCIS histology code 8522/3 or is the ductal in situ a 3rd primary?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

According to our pathologist consultant:

Invasive small cell carcinoma of lobular histogenesis appears to be an unusual histology for a breast primary. Code it as such 8041 [Small cell carcinoma, NOS].

The 2002 lesion is most likely a new primary since the previous lesion was 18 years ago, in a different quadrant, and invasive. A comedo DCIS would probably not be asymtomatic for 18 years; an unlikely "recurrence" of an earlier ducal carcinoma.

Code "invasive small cell carcinoma of lobular histogenesis, high grade ductal carcinoma in situ, comedo type" as two primaries. Code the small cell as a separate primary (8041/3), and the DCIS separately (8501/2).

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2003
20031024 Surgical Fields--Head & Neck: How does one code the removal of benign submandibular and sublingual glands performed during a neck dissection for a head and neck cancer? See discussion. Should the removal be coded as incidental in the surgical Procedure if the Other Site field? Does it make a difference if the submandibular gland is removed en toto with lymph nodes or if the gland is submitted as a separate specimen? Does it make a difference if the glands are involved?

Removal of the lower salivary glands is part of a radical neck dissection and is not recorded in Surgery of Primary Site or Surgery of Other Site. Radical neck dissection is coded under "Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery."

It does not matter whether or not the gland is submitted as a separate specimen. It does not matter whether or not the gland is involved.

 2003
20031181

EOD-Extension--Kaposi Sarcoma: Is a "markedly enlarged spleen" involvement for cases of Kaposi Sarcoma?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: No. Splenomegaly is not synonymous with "extension to" or "involvement of" the spleen in Kaposi's sarcoma. Look for a definite statement of Kaposi's lesion(s) involving the spleen.

 2003
20031143

Ambiguous terminology/EOD-Extension: Is the term "within" a term of involvement in coding extent of disease? See Description.

For example: a kidney tumor is described as "completely encased within the renal capsule with no extension into perirenal fat." Does this mean the renal capsule has been invaded (extension code 20) or that the tumor is totally contained within an area surrounded by the renal capsule (extension code 10)?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The term "within" is not one of the listed ambiguous terms for EOD. Determine extent of involvement from the context in which "within" appears.

In the example, "Encased" is an ambiguous term meaning not involved. Code extension for the example to 10 [Invasive cancer confined to kidney cortex and/or medulla].

 2003
20031174 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Recurrence--Breast: Has SEER established a priority of medical opinions to determine the number of primaries or a time parameter establishing recurrence? When a pathologist and a physician refer to the subsequent reappearence in the same breast as both "recurrence" and "new primary"? See Description.

Example 1. Patient was diagnosed with right breast cancer in 1999 and underwent lumpectomy followed by radiation therapy. In 2001, patient was again found to have right breast cancer and was admitted for mastectomy. The surgeon stated that this was recurrence. The patient's primary care physician stated the patient had a new primary. Is there a priority order if the multiple physicians involved in a patient's care do not agree on the diagnosis?

Example 2. Patient was diagnosed in 1998 with left breast cancer. In 2000, the patient again was diagnosed with left breast cancer. There was no mention of recurrence so case was accessioned as a second primary. In 2003, patient was again admitted for an unrelated disease. In the H&P, the physician stated that the patient had recurrent breast cancer in 2000. Do we remove the second primary from our file based on this statement three years later?

Example 3. Patient was diagnosed with Paget's disease with intraductal carcinoma, left breast, in 1997. In August 2002, patient underwent left mastectomy for DCIS, left breast. In November 2002, patient's oncologist stated that patient had been on Evista for 5 years and had recurrent cancer despite Evista. Do we accession this as one or two primaries?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Use the best information available. In general, information from the time closest to the event in question is more accurate than later information. The opinion of the pathologist tends to be the most valuable. Beyond that, SEER has not established a hierarchy of physician opinions.

Be aware that a physician's use of the term "recurrence" does not always mean that the second tumor originated from cells from the first tumor.

Examples 1, 2 & 3. Follow SEER rules for determining multiple primaries. In each case, the diagnoses are more than two months apart. Abstract as two primaries.

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2003
20031186 Immunotherapy/Radiation Therapy: Is I-131 labeled immunoglobulin coded as immunotherapy or radiation therapy? Code treatment with I-131 labeled immunoglobulin as radiotherapy. The primary action is radiotherapeutic. Radioimmunotherapy (RIT) uses antibodies to deliver the radiotherapy to the site of the tumor. 2003
20031078 EOD-Lymph Nodes--Colon: Are "multiple submucosal lymphoid collections infiltrated with tumor" or "lymphoid areas" coded as lymph node involvement, similar to the way nodules in the pericolic fat are coded? See Description. For an adenocarcinoma in the colon, under the "lymph node" section of the final path diagnosis it states "multiple submucosal lymphoid collections infiltrated with tumor" in addition to "one of two involved lymph nodes." The micro description states "There are multiple small lymphoid areas with tumor. A definite node excised from the mesentery shows...replacement of stroma and an additional very small node shows no tumor."

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: No, do not code tumor infiltration of lymphoid collections or lymphoid areas as lymph node involvement.

However, code lymph node involvement for this case as 3 [mesenteric, NOS] because a mesenteric node is involved.

Regarding tumor infiltration of lymphoid collections or lymphoid areas from our pathologist consultant: Unless the anatomy of lymph node is evident (sinuses, trabeculae, primary and secondary follicles) these aren't lymph nodes and should not be coded as such. Unless there is evidence to the contrary in the path report, I would suggest that this be considered intramural spread, not lymph node spread.

 2003