SEER Inquiry System - Search

In our registry, we code the primary site for such cases to the extra-lymphatic site if there is one extra-nodal site involved with disease and the patient does not have disseminated involvement of multiple extra-nodal sites. Is this correct? Example: A patient with a submandibular lymphoma and involved nodes undergoes a salivary gland excision and a modified radical neck dissection yielding 100 nodes.

In previous STR versions and the ICD-O-3.2, SFT/hemangiopericytoma, WHO G1 is 8815/0 and only SFT/hemangiopericytoma, WHO G2 was 8815/1. However, Table 6 (Non-Malignant CNS, Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtypes/Variants) was changed in the 2025 updates to indicate both G1 and G2 SFT/hemangiopericytoma are 8815/1.

No date range was provided for this change in the STR and the behavior of this tumor was not updated by the standard setters in other references (i.e., ICD-O-3.2). The behavior of G1 SFT/hemangiopericytoma was not updated in the 2025 ICD-O-3.2 updates. If the ICD-O-3.2 was the source of this change, should this have been documented in the 2025 NAACCR Implementation Guidelines? However, the 2025 NAACCR Implementation Guidelines indicates, "There are no ICD-O-3 changes for 2025." Is this behavior change in 2025 Solid Tumor Rules updates an error? Should the behavior of SFT/hemangiopericytoma, WHO G1 remain /0? 

In reference to the case below, does it make a difference if the CS T stage is known based on the primary excision but there is no clinical information in the record regarding the nodes or metastasis evaluation.

This scenario is seen on outpatient records of breast biopsies and melanoma excisions; i.e., punch bx followed by gross excision of the lesion but the medical record contains no clinical information or statement of everything else normal.

I&R Question 17625 2/16/2006

A patient was diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ by needle core biopsy of the right breast. There was no further information in the chart stating if or where the patient went for staging work-up and treatment. What are the codes for CS Extension, CS Regional Lymph Nodes and CS Distant Mets at Dx?

I&R Answer: Sufficient tissue must be taken to determine the T category. If this is the case, CS Extension = 00.

Unless the physician makes the statement that the physical exam is negative, code the CS Regional Lymph Nodes = 99 CS Distant Mets at DX = 99.

In researching this, acral lentiginous melanoma is observed on the palms, soles and under the nails. To code to 8744, do we specifically have to see the word "acral" lentiginous melanoma?

In September 2009 the patient was diagnosed with seminoma, classical type, following an orchiectomy. Testicular mass recurrence in 2014 was treated with chemotherapy.

Then in April 2015 a retroperitoneal dissection of a peri-aortic LN was positive for mixed germ cell tumor with somatic type malignancy (rhabdomyosarcoma) involving 1/11 nodes. Path Comment: major component of tumor is teratoma, rhabdomyosarcoma represents <5% of mass.

Now in October 2016, the patient has a retroperitoneal mass biopsy positive for spindle cell sarcoma with rhabdomyosarcomatous differentiation. The comment section of the pathology report states, "Given the history of a germ cell tumor w/ rhadbomosarcomatous component, the findings are consistent with a recurrence of rhabdomyosarcomatous component of germ cell tumor."

Can a seminoma transform to a mixed germ cell tumor with a somatic type malignancy (see SINQ 20140082 - testicular teratoma with somatic type malignancy)?

In SINQ 20100025 a patient was diagnosed with multiple urinary system tumors over a year apart. Rule M8 applies (single primary) and the primary site was left coded to the original primary site, C65.9 [renal pelvis]. In SINQ 20110119 a patient is diagnosed with multiple urinary system tumors within a month of each other, again rule M8 applies (single primary) and the primary site was coded to C68.9 [urinary system, NOS].

In both cases, rule M8 applies. However, the tumors were not diagnosed synchronously (e.g., one month apart in one case and greater than one year apart in the other). When the SINQ answer states, "same time" or "synchronous" does this mean during the same event? If not, what is the time range for "same time" or "synchronous"?

Please clarify when it is appropriate to code the primary site to C68.9 [urinary system, NOS] for Rule M8 and when it is not.

In Table 3 (Specific Histologies, NOS/ NST, and Subtypes/Variants), the entry for papillary carcinoma, NOS includes a change in column 3 of the 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules that conflicts with the H Rules. It is not accounted for in the change log. No explanation is offered as to why this change was made. This is a major change because encapsulated papillary carcinoma is frequently associated with carcinoma NST, and we have not been collecting these as such.

Encapsulated papillary carcinoma (8504) in column 3 now includes an indented entry, with invasive carcinoma, NST/invasive duct carcinoma 8504/3. However, most encapsulated papillary carcinomas are in situ or there is no definitive statement of invasive encapsulated papillary carcinoma, so when in situ and invasive tumors are present, we are instructed to code the invasive histology (which would be the invasive carcinoma (NST), 8500/3). How are registrars to arrive at the correct histology without a new H rule or a clarification regarding this update being documented in the change log?

Does the same change/addition apply to solid papillary carcinoma? These are often also associated with carcinoma, NST. Again, without an explanation regarding the change mentioned above, it is difficult to understand why the change was made.

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

In the 2018 ICD-O-3 Update Table, undifferentiated high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma and undifferentiated high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma of bone (C40_) were both listed as a New Term for histology 8830/3. There was no site restriction for a diagnosis of undifferentiated high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma. Therefore, it appears the diagnosis could easily be applied to a soft tissue tumor. This histology is used by pathologists in our region for soft tissue tumors as well as bone tumors. However, in the ICD-O-3.2 Table an entry (or synonym) was not provided for a tumor outside the bone.

The ICD-O-3.2 Table only lists undifferentiated high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma of bone for site codes C40_ and C41_ as a synonym for histology 8830/3. This also is not listed in the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines. As a result, it is unclear whether a diagnosis of undifferentiated high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma of the soft tissue can be coded to 8830/3 and/or can be a synonym for the preferred term (8830/3, Malignant fibrous histiocytoma). Can a diagnosis of undifferentiated high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma of the soft tissue be coded to 8830/3, C49_ as it was per the 2018 ICD-O-3 Update Table?

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

In the 2024 Solid Tumor Rules update, the small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma row in Table 2 was changed. The NOS histology became neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS (8246) and both large cell and small cell neuroendocrine carcinomas (8013 and 8041, respectively) became the subtype/variants. This change impacts Rule H4 but Rule H4 was not updated. Rule H4 still refers to small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma as being the NOS histology.

In the prior STR versions, it was clear the tumor in question would be coded as 8045 per Rule H4 and Table 2. Considering Rule H4 was not updated according to the changes for Table 2, does histology 8045 still apply to this diagnosis?

There is currently no way to arrive at a histology for this case. Does Rule H4, bullet 3 need to be updated to indicate, “subtype/variant of neuroendocrine carcinoma mixed with any other carcinoma (does not apply to sarcoma)”?

In the April 2019 Breast Solid Tumor Rules update, the Priority Order for Using Documentation to Identify Histology was changed, giving equal priority to the Final diagnosis / synoptic report as required by CAP (item 2B).

There are technically two histologies documented for the case above; a Not Otherwise Stated (NOS)/No Special Type (NST) (invasive mammary carcinoma, per final diagnosis text) and subtype/variant (invasive cribriform carcinoma, per CAP report). If we do not use the synoptic report with priority over the final diagnosis, Rule H14 indicates the histology would be the NOS histology (invasive mammary carcinoma) because the percentage of tumor is not given for the subtype. However, SINQ 20180045 states, In the CAP protocol, the term Histologic Type is a label where the histology that corresponds to the largest carcinoma is collected. According to the CAP protocol for invasive breast cancer, the histologic type corresponds to the largest carcinoma.

If the pathologist summarizes the findings in a synoptic report, should the specific Histologic Type identified have priority?