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: 04/21/2026 10:13 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20110045 Reportability--Ovary: Is immature teratoma of the ovary reportable if a subsequent comment states that "the teratoma shows immature neuroepithelium, but no malignant elements"? There is conflicting information for this case. The final diagnosis conflicts with the comment. Go back and check with the physician to clarify his/her intent. If no further information can be obtained, the final diagnosis is preferred over the comment. This case is reportable based on the final diagnosis: "immature teratoma." 2011
20110044

MP/H Rules/Histology--Corpus uteri: What are the histologies for the primaries to be reported when the endometrium contains two separate tumors composed of adenocarcinoma with multiple differentiations as well as a separate small focus of clear cell carcinoma? See Discussion.

 

The resected specimen showed, "Adenocarcinoma of endometrium with the following features: Histologic type: Endometrioid with squamous and focal clear cell differentiation. A second focus of endometrial adenocarcinoma is present in the fundus with admixed complex atypical hyperplasia in a polypoid, non-invasive mass. The second tumor is endometrioid with secretory differentiation. COMMENT: The tissue in between the two tumors is sampled, and contains foci of endometrial adenocarcinoma that is superficially present within the endometrium, as well as a small focus of clear cell carcinoma measuring 0.2 cm."

Per MP/H rules M17, this is counted as multiple primaries because the histology codes differ at the third digit: 8323/3, 8382/3, 8310/3. The Multiple Primary rules make no reference to the histology tables. There is also no rule to ignore the in situ tumor. In addition, the histology table in the 2007 MP/H Rules Manual for Other Sites does not include "secretory differentiation" as a type of GYN malignancy.

After consultation with our expert pathologist, the decision is report this case as a single primary. There was some confusion about how to apply the current MP/H rules to this pathology report given 1) the definition of M16 and M17 and 2) the likelihood for a single endometrial primary to present with several differentiations. According to our expert pathologist, "I would regard this case as a single endometrial primary with extensive endometrial involvement and several types of differentiation, all of which are seen in endometrial carcinomas."

Next, the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual is the correct source for coding histology for cases diagnosed 2007 or later.

The following steps are used to determine the histology code.

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For an endometrial primary, use the Other Sites Histo rules to determine the histology code because endometrium does not have site specific rules.

Start with the MULTIPLE TUMORS ABSTRACTED AS A SINGLE PRIMARY module, Rule H18. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module from Rule H18 to Rule H31. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.

Code the appropriate combination/mixed code (Table 2) when there are multiple specific histologies. GYN malignancies with multiple types of adenocarcinoma have histology coded to 8323/3 [mixed cell adenocarcinoma] per rule H30.

 2011
20110043 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Which specimen should be used to code histology when a core biopsy revealed an unknown sized DCIS, comedo type and the partial mastectomy specimen showed only a 2mm focus of DCIS, solid pattern? See Discussion.

Should the histology be coded from the needle core biopsy or the partial mastectomy specimen? Patient had a needle core biopsy that revealed DCIS, comedo type, cribriform pattern, no tumor size given. Subsequently, the patient had a partial mastectomy which revealed DCIS, noncomedo type, solid pattern, largest focus of DCIS was 0.2cm.

Should the histology code be 8501/2 or 8230/2? The microscopic description on the partial mastectomy says that the previous core needle biopsy site revealed several foci of DCIS.

 Code the histology from the most representative specimen (the specimen with the MOST tumor tissue). Compare the size of tumor in the two specimens. If the tumor size is not available for both procedural specimens, code histology from the mastectomy specimen rather than the needle biopsy specimen. 2011
20110042 MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: How is histology coded when the initial biopsies of retroperitoneal mass demonstrated non-seminomatous germ cell tumor, but after neoadjuvant chemotherapy the final diagnosis on the radical orchiectomy specimen demonstrated mature teratoma, NOS (not stated to be malignant)? See Discussion. A large retroperitoneal mass was found on CT scan. A biopsy demonstrated non-seminomatous germ cell tumor. The biopsy was done at an outside facility. Neither the CT scan nor biopsy pathology report is available for review. Following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the retroperitoneal mass decreased to 12 cm. Subsequently, the patient had a right radical orchiectomy. The final diagnosis per the pathology reports was a 3.5 cm mature teratoma (NOS, not stated to be "malignant") of right testicle. The patient then had resection of the retroperitoneal mass and biopsies. Pathology showed the "excision" specimen contained 6 benign lymph nodes and two of the "biopsy" specimens showed non-seminomatous germ cell neoplasm with IHC findings suggestive of a mix of embryonal carcinoma and a lesser component of yolk sac tumor.

This is a reportable case. Even though the pathology from the orchiectomy stated mature teratoma, NOS, the presence of lymph node metastases proves that this tumor is malignant. Code the histology as 9065/3 [germ cell tumor non-seminomatous].

The majority of germ cell tumors show the presence of multiple histologies. While the original tumor showed only mature teratoma, there were obviously yolk sac cells that were not detected on the sections taken from the primary tumor. Both teratoma and yolk sac are germ cell tumors. This explains why the pathologist gave you the diagnosis of germ cell tumor. The classification of "non-seminomatous" simply means that there was no seminomas present in the mixture of germ cell histologies.

2011
20110041 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is this field coded when the final diagnosis for excisional biopsy of two cervical lymph nodes shows classical Hodgkin lymphoma, histologic subtype cannot be determined, but the COMMENT section of the report indicates there are features of both lymphocyte rich and nodular sclerosis subtypes?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Per Rule PH28, code histology to 9650/3 [Classical Hodgkin lymphoma]. This rule states to code the non-specific (NOS) histology when the diagnosis is one non-specific (NOS) histology and two or more specific histologies.

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

2011
20110040

Reportability--Melanoma: Is a pathology report with a final diagnosis stating only non-reportable terms, followed by a re-excision pathology report that indicates "no residual melanoma" reportable? See Discussion.

Is a case reportable if the final diagnosis on an initial pathology report states a non-reportable term (e.g., evolving melanoma, early/evolving melanoma or melanocytic nevus) and followed by a subsequent re-excision pathology report stating there is "No residual melanoma"? There is no mention in the clinical history on the subsequent pathology report that the diagnosis was thought to be melanoma following the first procedure. The first mention of the reportable term was in the final diagnosis of the subsequent pathology report that stated "no residual melanoma."

No. This case is not reportable based on the information provided. "No residual melanoma" is not diagnostic of a reportable neoplasm.

We recommend that you try to obtain more information from the clinician/pathologist for this case due to the poor documentation. Check for any additional resection performed.

 2011
20110039 Multiple primaries/Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What are the primary sites and how many primaries are abstracted, when 2004 diagnosis of grade 2 follicular lymphoma of the bilateral breasts is subsequently diagnosed with a 2010 diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (40%) and grade 3a follicular lymphoma (60%) of a left arm nodule? See Discussion.

Follicular lymphoma was diagnosed 7/2004, grade 2 per biopsy of the bilateral breasts. Bone marrow biopsy was positive for lymphoma involving 10% of bone marrow. Imaging showed extensive lymphadenopathy mainly in abdomen/pelvis with an 8 cm mass in the right pelvis. Smaller lymph nodes were noted in the left periaortic region and also some small precarinal lymph nodes. This was a stage IVA lymphoma. The patient had six cycles of CHOP/R with an excellent response. Per the clinician's notes on 12/2005, there was no evidence of recurrence or no sign of active disease. The plan was to follow up with the patient in 6 months.

08/22/06 imaging showed new disease in the bilateral chest wall. 8/2006 bilateral breast nodule biopsies, are positive for grade 1-2 follicular lymphoma. The patient was treated with Rituxan. Per clinician's 3/2007 note, no active disease is noted. Patient was regularly followed with no evidence of disease until 10/2010. At that time, the patient had a left arm nodule biopsy which was positive for diffuse large B cell lymphoma (40%) CD positive and grade 3a follicular lymphoma (60%). RICE was recommended due to "transformation" per oncologist.

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Per Rule M10, this case should be accessioned as two primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm (is follicular lymphoma (FL), grade 2) AND there is a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma) more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis.

Code the histology for the first primary to 9691/3 [follicular lymphoma (FL), grade 2] and the primary site to bilateral C509 [breast, NOS]. FL can start as an extranodal disease; breast is one of the sites in which it originates. It is unlikely that the lymphoma extended from the nodes to the breast, but highly likely that it extended from the breast to the nodes.

Per Rule M4, abstract the 2010 disease process as a single primary when two or more types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma are simultaneously present in the same anatomic location(s), such as the same lymph node or lymph node region(s), the same organ(s), and/or the same tissue(s). Per Rule PH11 the primary site is coded to C779 [lymph nodes, NOS] and the histology is coded to 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)]. Rule PH11 states one is to code the primary site to the site of origin, lymph node(s), lymph node region(s), tissue(s) or organ(s) and histology to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (9680/3) when DLBCL and any other non-Hodgkin lymphoma are present in the same lymph node(s), lymph node region(s), organ(s), tissue(s) or bone marrow.

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2011
20110038

Reportability/Behavior: Is a "minimally invasive thymoma" a reportable malignancy if the pathology report does not specifically state it is malignant? See Discussion.

For example, are Types A, B1, B2 and B3 reportable if the pathology report does not state the tumor is a "Malignant Thymoma"?

For cases diagnosed prior to 2021

According to our expert pathologist consultant, code using the terms in the pathology report. Do not try to second guess the pathologist.

  1. Thymomas are /1 and not reportable unless the pathologist states "malignant". This includes A, AB, B1, B2, and B3. Any one of these types of tumors may exhibit invasion but do not code /3 based only on invasion.

  • Code thymoma as /3 if specifically designated "malignant" by the pathologist.

  • Thymic carcinoma and any of its subtypes are malignant, /3.

    		•  2011
    		20110037 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What primary site is coded for the 2010 cervical lymph node excision diagnosis of composite lymphoma that followed a 2002 history of follicular lymphoma involving lymph nodes and organs on both sides of the diaphragm? See Discussion.

    The patient was diagnosed with a composite lymphoma of a cervical lymph node 8 years after diagnosis of follicular lymphoma that involved lymph nodes and organs on both sides of the diaphragm. The patient's follicular lymphoma was diagnosed in 2002.

    In 2010 an excisional biopsy of a left neck lymph node showed classical Hodgkin lymphoma, nodular sclerosis type, grade 2 (predominant component) associated with (minor component) low grade follicular lymphoma (composite lymphoma).

    Should the primary site for the 2010 primary be coded to C770 [lymph nodes of head, face & neck] or C778 [multiple lymph node regions]?

    For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

    Code the primary site to C770 [lymph nodes of the head and neck]. Per Rule PH19, code the primary site to the specific lymph node region when only one lymph node or one lymph node region is involved. No involvement other than the cervical lymph nodes is mentioned for the disease in 2010.

    SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

    		2011
    		20110035 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site coded when both a lymph node biopsy and peripheral blood are positive for CLL/SLL? See Discussion. Per Module 3, Rules PH5 and PH6 in the Hematopoietic Manual, it states that CLL has peripheral blood involvement and SLL does not.

    For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

    Code the primary site to C421 [bone marrow] and histology to 9823/3 [CLL/SLL]. Per Rule there may be involvement of bone marrow AND lymph node(s), lymph node region(s), organ(s), or tissue(s) but as long as the peripheral blood and/or bone marrow are involved, the primary site is bone marrow (C421).

    SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

    		2011