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: 02/28/2026 13:07 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20091123

Reportability: Is a tumor reportable if the pathology report indicates a non-reportable diagnosis at the time the specimen is removed but subsequent clinical statements state the patient had a reportable tumor? See Discussion.

The 2007 SEER Manual (page 3) states that cases diagnosed clinically are reportable. Exception 2 states if enough time has passed that it is reasonable to assume the physician has seen the negative pathology report, but the clinician continues to call this a reportable disease, accession the case.

SEER reporting guidelines state that severe dysplasia is not reportable, however, many clinicians regard it to be equivalent to carcinoma in situ.

Example 1: In 09-2007 the pathology report for excisional biopsy of right floor of mouth states the final diagnosis is severe dysplasia. At the time, the case is not accessioned based on non-reportable pathology. Patient is subsequently admitted in 3-09. According to the clinical history the patient was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma in 2007 and treated with laser. Is this reportable? If yes, how is behavior to be coded? How is "Ambiguous Terminology at Diagnosis" to be coded?

Example 2: In 2-08, the pathology report for a punch biopsy of a skin lesion states the final diagnosis is atypical melanocytic hyperplasia. In 3-08, patient is admitted for re-excision. The clinical diagnosis states re-excision being done for melanoma in situ.

Reference: SINQ 20061123

A tumor that is non-reportable based on the pathology report diagnosis should not be accessioned if later clinician statements mistakenly refer to it as a reportable tumor. The exception in the 2007 SEER manual on page 3 is intended to allow the registrar to accession a case when the clinician actually disagrees with the pathology report and clinically diagnoses a reportable tumor.

 2009
20091052 Multiple Primaries--Lymphoma: How many primaries should be reported when a left tonsil biopsy is diagnosed with marginal zone lymphoma (9699) and a cervical lymph node biopsy is diagnosed with marginal zone lymphoma and grade 3 follicular lymphoma (9699 and 9698)?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

Abstract two primaries: The first is a marginal zone lymphoma of tonsil and the second is a follicular lymphoma of cervical lymph node. According to the Single versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases (the tri-fold chart), marginal zone lymphoma (9699) and follicular lymphoma (9698) are different primaries.

For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.

 2009
20091120

MP/H Rules/Histology--Esophagus: Should the modifying expression "with areas of" be used to code histology? See Discussion.

Patient was found to have two tumors in the esophagus. The large tumor was diagnosed as adenocarcinoma with areas of neuroendocrine differentiation (small cell carcinoma). The smaller tumor was diagnosed as small cell carcinoma. If we accept the "areas of" to be part of the diagnosis, rule H16 indicates that histology for the large tumor would be coded 8045 (combined small cell and adenocarcinoma). If we ignore the "areas of," then histology for the large tumor would be coded to 8140 (adenocarcinoma). Either way, when counting primaries, rule M17 would be applied and the two tumors would be classified as separate primaries. However, it seems that the two tumors are probably the same disease process since they both show small cell carcinoma.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, do not use the modifying expression "with areas of" to determine a more specific histology per rule H13 in the MP/H rules.

 2009
20091122 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries-Brain: Does a glioblastoma multiforme following a low grade glioma (oligodendroglioma) represent a new primary? See Discussion.

In 2/08 patient underwent resection of tumor of right frontal lobe. Path diagnosis showed a low grade glioma, favor low grade oligodendroglioma (WHO grade II). In 02/09 biopsy of a left thalamic mass showed glioblastoma mutiforme. Per rule M6 glioblastoma multiforme following a glial tumor is a single primary. Per path diagnosis, the first tumor represented a low grade glioma. However, oligodendroglioma is not on the glial branch of chart 1 in the MP/H rules.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, glioblastoma multiforme following oligodendroglioma are multiple primaries according to rule M8. Rule M6 does not apply. M6 applies only to glial tumors as listed in chart 1. Chart 1 is based on the WHO classification. The WHO classification separates oligodendroglial tumors from glial tumors. 2009
20091119

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries are to be reported for an adenocarcinoma of the lung in the right middle lobe of the lung and bronchioalveolar carcinoma, non-mucinous type in the right upper lobe? See Discussion.

Bilobectomy revealed two tumors, adenocarcinoma in the right middle lobe and bronchioalveoar carcinoma non-mucinous type in the right upper lobe. MP/H rule M10 states that tumors with non-small cell carcinoma (8046) and a more specific non-small cell type (chart 1) are a single primary. Does rule M10 apply to only those cases for which one tumor is stated to be non-small cell, NOS? Or do we use chart 1 to identify specific subtypes? For this case, using chart 1, would we note that bronchioalveolar is a subtype of adenocarcinoma and count this case as a single primary? Most of the MP/H rules schemas have a rule making an adenocarcinoma and a more specific type of adenocarcinoma a single primary. Would we apply rule M10 to this case and count it as a single primary? Or would we move on to rule M11 and count the case as two primaries?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M11 applies. Accession two primaries.

Rule M10 applies only to cases for which one tumor is stated to be "non-small cell carcinoma."

 2009
20091108 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How do we apply the MP/H rules if a pathologist states a patient has multiple reportable primaries after he compares an October 2006 RLL lung specimen with a March 2009 RML lung specimen? See Discussion. Patient had a right lung lobectomy (RLL) in Oct. 2006 diagnosed as adenocarcinoma. In March of 2009, two nodules in the right upper lobe were identified. Following a RUL wedge resection, the pathology report indicated: Two foci of M.D. adenocarcinoma with mixed mucinous and micropapillary and solid patterns. COMMENT: The present tumor is compared to the previous adenocarcinoma reviewed in 2006. Although there is some overlap in their appearance, the present tumor shows a much greater component of mucinous adenocarcinoma. Because there is some difference in the appearance, and the nodule is located in a separate lobe, this will be dictated as a separate lung primary.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is two primaries.

MPH General Instructions tell us a pathologist may decide when there is recurrence when comparing the current tumor to a previous specimen. In this case, the pathologist did the comparison and documented that the second tumor is NOT a recurrence but a new primary.

Histologies described by the terms "pattern" and "component" do not indicate a more specific type when applying the histology rules. The histology for the 2009 diagnosis is adenocarcinoma [8140/3]. Rule H3 applies.

2009
20091068 Primary site--Bladder: What is the appropriate subsite for "adjacent to the bladder neck"? Assign code C679 [Bladder, NOS]. It is not possible to determine the location of the tumor from the description. A tumor that is "adjacent to bladder neck" could be located in the trigone or on the bladder wall (anterior, posterior or lateral). 2009
20091104 MP/H Rules/Histology--Esophagus: How is histology coded for a biopsy of the esophagus with a pathologic diagnosis of "adenocarcinoma, intestinal type" when there is no evidence of a gastric tumor in scans or EDG? See Discussion. There is a rule for colon to disregard "intestinal type" and code to adenocarcinoma (8140) but no rule for esophagus. How should histology for this esophageal case be coded?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Follow MP/H Other Sites Rule H11 and code 8144/3 [Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type]. Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type, is called that because it resembles the normal pattern of adenocarcinoma seen in the large intestines. It is not an indication of the location of the adenocarcinoma. We find that it is not uncommon in the sinuses, stomach, lungs, cervix, and many other organs.

 2009
20091045 CS Tumor Size/CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: When tumor size is unknown, but it is known that both in situ and invasive components are present, how should CS Tumor Size and SSF6 be coded? See Discussion. We coded CS Tumor Size 990 and SSF 6 to 060 for a case in which no tumor size was mentioned and the breast core biopsy identified microinvasive infiltrating lobular carcinoma and lobular carcinoma insitu. The lumpectomy identified no residual tumor. SEER edit 218 states we must have CS Tumor Size as 999 if the CS SSF 6 is 060. Yet the tumor size code of 990 (Microinvasion; microscopic focus or foci only, no size given; described as less than 1 mm) would more accurately reflect this case. Even in a situation where there was microinvasion described as less than 1mm, the edit will not allow one to code CS Tumor Size to 990 with the CS SSF 6 as 060. Should these types of cases have CS Tumor Size coded 999 or should the edit be adjusted to allow for this combination?

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Code CS tumor size 990 [Microinvasion; microscopic focus or foci only, no size given; described as less than 1 mm] and CS SSF6 050 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in CS Tumor Size because size of invasive component not stated AND proportions of in situ and invasive not known].

This combination of codes captures the information available for this case.

 2009
20091062 CS Site Specific Factor--Head & Neck: How is Site Specific Factor 2 coded when the pathologist describes regional lymph nodes as "matted"? See Discussion. The primary tumor is located in the tonsil. The patient underwent neck dissection. Pathology report stated there were matted regional lymph nodes. Does the term matted describe extracapsular extension? The definition for site specific factor 2 uses the term "fixed" to describe extracapsular extension (but not matted). For breast, fixed/matted appear to be interchangeable. Would they also be interchangeable for head and neck cases?

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2."Matted" is not a synonym for "Fixed" in the CS schema for Head and Neck. "Matted" is not indicative of extracapsular extension for the Head and Neck schema.

 2009