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: 12/28/2025 03:12 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20130093 MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: What histology code is used for an adenocarcinoma in situ/bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC) of the lung? See Discussion.

Classification of lung malignancies has undergone a change. The bronchioloalveolar carcinoma histology is being replaced by adenocarcinoma in situ and minimally invasive adenocarcinoma, using an evaluation of lepidic growth pattern in the tumor.

The final diagnosis is "adenocarcinoma in situ/BAC" and the comment states, "The findings in the current biopsy are most compatible with low grade malignant lesions which, in this sample, shows features of adenocarcinoma in situ (former bronchioloalveolar adenocarcinoma), given the proliferation of pneumocytes is limited to the alveolar lining with no evidence of invasion. However, classification of the lesion depends, per reference guidelines (Travis et al. J THOR ONCOL 2011 6,(2):244-275), on its size and its overall histologic features, to rule out the presence of an invasive component and therefore can only be performed upon examination of it in its entirety, upon resection." The radiation oncologist staged this T1N0M0, stage 1 BAC.

Code the histology to 8140/2 [adenocarcinoma in situ, NOS].

The comment for this case is consistent with information from the CAP protocol, which says, "The diagnosis of bronchioloalveolar carcinoma requires exclusion of stromal, vascular, and pleural invasiona requirement that demands the tumor be evaluated histologically in its entirety. It is therefore recommended that a definitive diagnosis of bronchioloalveolar adenocarcinoma not be made on specimens in which the tumor is incompletely represented."

This tumor was not completely resected. Therefore, code to adenocarcinoma in situ based on the information provided.

2013
20130134

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: According to the hematopoietic database, systemic mastocytosis is reportable; does that include INDOLENT systemic mastocytosis (which is not listed in the list of alternative names)?

For cases diagnosed 2018 and forward, indolent systemic mastocytosis is not reportable (9741/1). Smoldering systemic mastocytosis is reportable (9741/3).

 2013
20130203 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are accessioned for a diagnosis of cerebral cavernous malformation disorder (CCM1) and MRI evidence of dozens of cavernous angiomas/malformations throughout the supra and infratentorium? See Discussion.

9/9/11 IMP: Presymptomatic cerebral cavernous malformation disorder (CCM1).

9/9/11 Brain MRI: FINDINGS: Total of 14 foci. 2 largest in rt frontal lobe. In rt frontal lobe, total of 4 foci. Of remaining 10 small foci, 4 are in cerebellum, 1 in rightward pons, 1 in lt temporal lobe, 1 in lt occipital lobe, 1 in rt occipital lobe, 1 in posterior rt temporal lobe, & 1 in lt frontal lobe. Lesions in bilateral occipital lobes & lt temporal lobe are associated w/weighted signal suggestive of hemosiderin & are most c/w additional cavernous malformations. IMPRESSION: Just over a dozen scattered foci of gradient susceptibility throughout supra & infratentorium.

9/13/13 Brain MRI. Clinical diagnosis: Cerebral cavernous angiomas. FINDINGS: Approximately a dozen scattered foci. 2 largest in rt frontal lobe. Remaining small foci identified w/in cerebellum, rightward pons, rt occipital lobe, rt temporal lobe, & lt frontal lobe. Many are less conspicuous than in 2011 & a few that were present on prior study are not evident on current exam. This is likely due to differences in technique. IMPRESSION: Redemonstration of numerous scattered foci c/w cavernous malformations.

This case is not reportable as is. The clinical diagnosis on the 9/13/13 MRI was "cerebral cavernous angiomas," but the final impression on the MRI was a re-demonstration of the numerous scattered foci consistent with cavernous malformations seen on the previous 9/9/11 MRI. There was no reportable statement of cavernous angioma. Cavernous malformation is not a reportable neoplasm; it has no valid ICD-O-3 code.

Vascular tumors of the CNS are reportable when they arise in the dura or parenchyma of the CNS. When they arise in blood vessels or bone, they are not reportable. Do not report vascular tumors when there is not enough information to determine whether they arise in the dura or parenchyma or elsewhere.

2013
20130023

Reportability--Brain and CNS: Why has reportability changed for "intradural extramedullary schwannomas"? Are all "spinal" schwannomas reportable or only those stated to be "intradural"? See Discussion.

If intradural schwannomas are to be collected for cases diagnosed 2011 and later, why were they not included in the 2012 SEER Manual? Should collection of spinal schwannomas be postponed until the next revision of the MP/H Rules?

The reportability of schwannomas was not initially agreed upon by the standard setters. After the issue was discussed by the CoC, NPCR and SEER Technical Workgroup and an agreement was reached. See #2 under Reportability in the Data Collection Answers from the CoC, NPCR, SEER Technical Workgroup http://www.seer.cancer.gov/registrars/data-collection.html#reportability.

The most accurate and most current instruction is to report these spinal tumors when they arise within the spinal dura or spinal nerve roots, or when they are stated to be "intradural" or "of the nerve root." Do not report these tumors when they arise in the peripheral nerves. The peripheral nerves are the portion of nerve extending beyond the spinal dura.

Spinal cord intradural schwannomas originate in spinal nerve roots. Spinal nerve root is best classified as spinal cord, C720.

2013
20130085

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient was treated in 1999 with Vidaza for myelodysplastic syndrome and had a recent biopsy that demonstrated a transformation to acute myeloid leukemia?

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

This case should be accessioned as a single primary, acute myeloid leukemia [9861/3].

MDS diagnosed prior to 1/1/2001 is not a reportable disease process. However, because MDS is currently a reportable disease process, it must be considered when trying to determine whether the AML represents a separate primary.

  • If the Heme DB indicates MDS and AML represent different (separate) disease processes, only one primary is reported (i.e., AML) because the 1999 diagnosed MDS is not reportable.
  • If the Heme DB indicates MDS and AML represent the same disease process, then no primaries are reported because MDS was not reportable in 1999.

Rule M2 does not apply to this case because more than one histology is mentioned in the scenario. According to the Heme DB, MDS can transform to AML. Rules M8-M13 apply to cases involving transformation. In this case, Rule M10 applies because the patient was diagnosed with a chronic neoplasm (myelodysplastic syndrome) followed greater than 21 days later by an acute neoplasm (AML).

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.

 2013
20130106 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a 2009 diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma, nodular sclerosis type is treated and subsequently presents in 2010 with the same diagnosis? See Discussion.

2009 diagnosis of Hodgkin lymphoma, nodular sclerosis type involved the superior mediastinal nodes, AP window nodes, bilateral axillary nodes and pulmonary nodules. The patient received chemotherapy and went into remission.

Patient presents in 2010 with Hodgkin lymphoma, nodular sclerosing type in the superior mediastinum.

Does timing play any part in determining if this reported as one or two primaries? There is no timing rule in the Heme Manual.

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

Accession a single primary, Hodgkin lymphoma, nodular sclerosis type [9663/3] diagnosed in 2009 per Rule M2.

Accession a single primary when there is a single histology. Note 2 for Rule M2 indicates timing is not relevant. This is disease progression or recurrence and not a new primary.

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.

2013
20130177 MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: What rule and histology code apply when a TURB final diagnosis is small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma and high grade urothelial carcinoma? See Discussion.

The patient has a 6 cm tumor arising in posterior-lateral bladder extending to prostate, obliterates seminal vesicle, and invades pelvic wall.

TURB final diagnosis: Small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. High grade urothelial carcinoma involves 10% of tumor.

Following the current MP/H single tumor rules, it appears Rule H8 applies. Per Rule H8, code the numerically higher code of 8120. By following this rule, it does not seem the histology code fairly represents this tumor.

There is currently no rule in the urinary site MP/H Rules for this combination of histologies. The best option is to code the histology to 8045/3 [mixed small cell carcinoma], a combination of small cell with other types of carcinoma. The presence of small cell carcinoma drives the treatment decisions for this case.

This issue will be addressed in the next revision of the MP/H Rules.

2013
20130050 Multiple Primaries/Primary site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned and what is the primary site and histology for each if a 6/12/12 left shoulder mass specimen suspicious for large B-cell lymphoma is followed on 7/10/12 with three skin nodules excised from the back with a diagnosis of "composite lymphoma? See Discussion.

6/12/12 Excisional biopsy left shoulder soft tissue mass: Suspicious for large B-cell lymphoma.

7/10/12 Excisional biopsy three skin nodules of back: "Composite lymphoma" - primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma (CD3 pos, CD4 pos, CD30 pos, ALK neg with partial loss of CD5) and CONCURRENT cutaneous follicular center lymphoma (CD20 pos, PAX5 pos, BCL-6 pos, partially CD10 pos) and flow cytometry revealed results compatible with involvement by a lymphoproliferative disorder of T-cell lineage.

Per imaging performed, there was no involvement of lymph nodes or other organs.

Is the primary site C449 Skin, NOS and histology 9718/3 [Lymphoma, primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell] be correct?

Code primary site to C445 [skin, back] and histology to 9718/3 [cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma] .

Per Rule M6, abstract a single primary when two or more types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma are simultaneously present in the same anatomic location. For this case, there is cutaneous follicular (follicle) center lymphoma (9597/3) and cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma (9718/3).

Per Rule PH22, code the primary site to the site or origin (skin, back) and the histology to the NHL with the numerically highest ICD-O-3 code. In this case, that would be 9718/3.

2013
20130080 Primary site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are the primary site and histology coded when a right neck mass and spinal mass both show B-cell lymphoma, favor Burkitt lymphoma? See Discussion.

2/5/11 Right neck swelling. Biopsy of mass B-cell lymphoma, favor Burkitt lymphoma.

7/5/11 Hemi-laminectomy, L2-L5 spinal mass: Malignant lymphoma, B-cell phenotype, favor Burkitt lymphoma.

Should the primary site be C779? Is the correct histology Burkitt lymphoma [9687/3] or malignant lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell [9680/3]?

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

Code the primary site to C779 [lymph nodes] per Rule PH22 and the histology to 9591/3 [B-cell lymphoma, NOS].

Code the primary site to C779 [lymph nodes, NOS] when lymphoma is present in an organ and lymph nodes that are not regional for that organ and the origin cannot be determined even after consulting the physician. The patient has involvement of a lumbar spine mass and cervical lymph nodes. Cervical lymph nodes are not regional to the lumbar area of the spine.

Do not use ambiguous terminology to code histology for hematopoietic neoplasms. "Favor" is ambiguous terminology. Therefore, the histology must be coded to B-cell lymphoma and not to diagnosis which is "favored" (Burkitt lymphoma). Remember that ambiguous terminology is only used to determine case reportability, not to code histology for hematopoietic neoplasms.

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.

2013
20130111 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a 2008 diagnosis of extralymphatic follicular lymphoma in the breast is subsequently diagnosed in 2011 with ocular follicular lymphoma? See Discussion.

The patient was diagnosed with follicular lymphoma in the breast in 2008. Per notes, there was no evidence of disease again until 2011 when the patient presented with ocular lymphoma. The physician stated this was part of the same disease process as the prior breast diagnosis. The bone marrow was not involved in either case.

Is this a single primary (recurrence) of follicular lymphoma? Or are these multiple primaries because they arise in different extralymphatic sites?

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

Accession a single primary, follicular lymphoma [9690/3] of the breast diagnosed in 2008 per Rule M2.

Accession a single primary when there is a single histology. This is a recurrence of the patient's 2008 follicular lymphoma.

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.

2013