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: 12/22/2025 11:32 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20190106

Tumor Size--Esophagus: Can information from the endoscopy procedure that implies a size of 3 cm for Tumor Size--Clinical be used for Esophagus? See Discussion.

1-28-2018 CT Scan: 2.4 cm mass

2-15-2018 Endoscopy: Mass was present 22 to 25 cm. Biopsies were taken with cold forceps for histology; biopsy positive.

For the case you describe, we would record the clinical tumor size stated on the CT report.

The priority order for clinical tumor size is as follows.

1. Biopsy or operative (surgical exploration) report

2. Imaging

3. Physical exam

We do not recommend coding tumor size based on an inferred tumor size from a description such as "Mass was present 22 to 25 cm." Look for an actual measurement of the mass, or a stated tumor size. Use text fields to record details.

 2019
20190005

Primary Site--Bladder: Does instruction #4 in the Urinary Sites Solid Tumor Rules Instructions for Coding Primary Site apply to a mix of in situ and invasive urothelial tumors?

Instruction #4: Code Urinary System NOS C689 when there are multiple non-contiguous tumors in multiple organs within the urinary system.

See Discussion.

Example: Patient has multiple biopsies with final diagnosis of in situ papillary urothelial carcinoma in the prostatic urethra and invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma in the bladder.

How should primary site be coded in this type of mixed in situ and invasive situation?

Code Urinary System NOS C689 for this case since there are two separate urinary sites involved. Apply instruction #4 when there is a mix of in situ and invasive urothelial tumors.

 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
20190063

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Sarcoma: How is histology coded for a CIC gene rearrangement sarcoma? See Discussion.

According to the literature, CIC gene rearrangement sarcomas in young patients are soft tissue sarcomas with an aggressive clinical course and may have previously been grouped under the Ewing-like family of tumors or as undifferentiated round cell sarcomas. There is currently no guideline in the solid tumor rules for coding a CIC gene rearrangement sarcoma. However, coding the histology to 8800 (sarcoma, NOS) seems unlikely to capture the more aggressive nature of these tumors. Can a more specific histology be coded?

Code as undifferentiated round cell sarcoma (8803/3).

The CIC rearrangement exists as a distinct molecular and clinical subset of small round cell tumors, and though similar, is felt to be a distinct entity from Ewing sarcoma. According to WHO Classification of Soft Tissues and Bone, 4th Edition, CID-DUX4 is a recurrent gene fusion associated with pediatric round cell undifferentiated soft tissue sarcoma (USTS). Although the genes involved in the fusion are different from those in Ewing sarcoma, the CIC-DUX4 protein has been shown to upregulate genes of the ETS family of genes thus providing a molecular link between Ewing sarcoma and round cell USTS. In contrast, there are strong arguments to suggest that Ewing-like sarcomas represent a separate and distinct entity.

 2019
20190034

Reportability/Histology--Penis: Is a diagnosis of undifferentiated penile intraepithelial neoplasia (PeIN) reportable for cases diagnosed in any year? See Discussion.

Example: An October 2017 glans penis biopsy final diagnosis was reported as: Undifferentiated (Warty-Basaloid) penile intraepithelial neoplasia.

In January 2018, an additional penile glans biopsy final diagnosis was reported as: At least squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in situ (HGPIN). Foreskin circumcision on the same pathology report shows SCC in situ.

It is unclear whether the term undifferentiated is synonymous with high-grade for the purposes of determining penile intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN/PEIN) reportability and diagnosis date.

Report undifferentiated penile intraepithelial neoplasia (PeIN) (8077/2). WHO Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs, 4th edition, lists basaloid (undifferentiated) penile intraepithelial neoplasia and warty (Bowenoid) penile intraepithelial neoplasia as a variants of PeIN.

 2019
20190010

Reportability/Histology--Bladder: Is papillary urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential (PUNLMP) (8130/1) reportable when also referred to as papillary transitional cell carcinoma, grade 1, no invasion (8130/2) previously? See Discussion.

The pathology report reads: Urinary bladder, tumor over right ureteral orifice, biopsy: Urinary bladder mucosa (urothelium) and submucosa (lamina propria), with papillary urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential (previously known as papillary transitional cell carcinoma, grade 1 of 3), no invasion identified.

This case is not reportable. PUNLMP (8130/1) is the diagnosis stated by the pathologist for this case and PUNLMP is not reportable. The information in parentheses is informational in this case and does not change the pathologist's diagnosis.

According to WHO Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs, 4th edition, there is variation of architectural and cytological features between PUNLMP and papillary urothelial carcinoma, low grade, reflecting grading changes from an older classification system.

 2019
20190001

EOD 2018/Summary Stage 2018--Brain and CNS: What are the Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor, EOD Regional Nodes, and Summary Stage 2018 codes for intradural schwannoma of the lumbar spine (L2-L4)? See Discussion.

Example: Patient diagnosed following a resection of a cystic mass at L2-4 that proved an intradural tumor excision with final diagnosis of schwannoma, WHO grade 1.

Per new Solid Tumor Rules, the primary site in this case should be coded C476 (peripheral nerves of trunk, NOS) and histology is 9560/0 (schwannoma, NOS). However, there are currently no coding options in the Soft Tissue of Trunk and Extremities EOD schema relating to a benign tumor. Likewise there are no coding options in the Soft Tissue and Sarcoma Summary Stage 2018 schema relating to a benign tumor.

How should EOD 2018 and Summary Stage 2018 be coded for reportable benign schwannomas of the spinal nerve roots?

The instruction regarding C476 has been removed from the Solid Tumor rules. Benign and borderline neoplasms coded to C470-C479 are not reportable at this time.

Assign C720 for an intradural schwannoma at L2-4. That should allow you to use the correct EOD and Summary Stage 2018 schemas.

 2019
20190032

Summary Stage 2018--Lung: Are ground-glass lung nodules coded as distant for Summary Stage? See Discussion.

Chest x-ray: Multifocal pneumonia in left lung; possibility of masses in left lung not excluded.

Chest CT: 4 large ground-glass masses in LUL (largest 46mm); beginning of Tree-In-Bud appearance in LUL; 2 small ground-glass nodules in right lung.

Lung LUL biopsy: Adenocarcinoma, Solid Predominant.

No further information as patient did not want to discuss treatment options.

Per the AJCC book and CAnswer Forum, multifocal classification should be applied equally whether the lesions are in the same lobe OR in different ipsilateral lobes OR contralateral lobes, cT2b(m), cN0, cM0.

Do not assume that ground glass presentation is consistent with a neoplasm. There are numerous causes of a ground glass lung condition such as sarcoidosis or pulmonary fibrosis. A ground glass lung opacity may also be observed in conditions such as alveolar proteinosis, desquamative pneumonitis, hypersensitive pneumonitis, and drug-induced or radiation-induced lung disease. If an area of ground glass opacity persists in the lung, it is usually classified as an adenocarcinoma, a classification that ranges from premalignant lesions to invasive disease. This is in line with AJCC that states to stage based on the largest tumor determined to be positive for cancer.

To Summary Stage the case example provided, ignore the lesions in the contralateral lung (do not assume that they are malignant). There are multiple lesions in the left lung, but once again, do not assume that those not biopsied are malignant. This leaves us with the lesion confirmed to be malignant, making this a Localized (code 1) tumor.

 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
20190051

Update to current manual/Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code and what M Rule applies when there are multiple specific subtypes identified using various equivalent lung terms but only one is stated to be predominant? See Discussion.

Example: Lung resection final diagnosis is Lung adenocarcinoma, see Summary Cancer Data, and the Summary Cancer Data (CAP Synoptic Report) states Histologic type: Invasive adenocarcinoma, solid predominant. Other Subtypes Present: 20% acinar and <5% micropapillary components.

Instruction 1B and Note 1 for Coding Multiple Histologies (Lung Histology Rules) indicates type, subtype, component, and predominantly are all terms that may be used to code the most specific histology. In this case, the multiple specific histologies were documented using all of those terms.

Note 2 for instruction 1B states predominantly describes the greatest amount of tumor and when it is used for the listed subtypes of adenocarcinoma, that subtype should be coded. However, Note 2 does not indicate that the other subtypes are ignored when one is identified to be predominant and the others are identified as subtype or component only.

Code to invasive adenocarcinoma, solid predominant (8230/3), based on the example, using Lung Solid Tumor Rules Coding Multiple Histologies instruction #1 that says to code the specific histology where the most specific histology may be described as component, majority/majority of, or predominantly, in this case, 75%. Apply Rule M2 as this appears to be a single tumor with multiple histologies based on the information provided.

The rules will be updated to add a new H rule and to reviseTable 2 when two or more histologies described as predominant are present.

 2019