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: 03/01/2026 06:12 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20100050

Reportability--Colon: Would a carcinoid tumor, NOS, of the appendix with perineural or angiolymphatic invasion be reportable if there is no mention of malignancy in the pathology report?

Carcinoid, NOS, of the appendix diagnosed in 2015 or later is reportable.

For cases diagnosed prior to 2015

Carcinoids of the appendix are reportable when they meet any of the following conditions.

  • The pathologist designates the carcinoid as malignant

  • Regional lymph nodes are positive for MALIGNANT carcinoid (not reportable if lymph nodes are reported to be involved with benign carcinoid disease)

  • There are discontinuous metastatic implants or involvement

    • Note that the implants/involvement must be designated as malignant. Many benign tumors will spawn implants that are also benign. If implants are benign, this is not a reportable tumor.

    		2010
    		20100031

    First course treatment--Anus: Is the topical application of trichloroacetic acid to an anal condyloma with AIN III first course treatment coded to 10 [Local tumor destruction, NOS] in the Surgery of Primary Site field?

    Code the trichloroacetic acid treatment of reportable AIN III in the "Other Therapy" field. Assign code 1 [Other].

    		 2010
    		20100013

    Reportability--Lymphoma: Should a December 2008 diagnosis of in situ follicular lymphoma be accessioned? See Discussion.

    Patient with mesenteric lymphadenopathy had a biopsy. Consult supports original pathology findings: The histologic and immunophenotypic findings represent what has been referred to in the literature as "in situ follicular lymphoma." The oncology assessment states, "At this point the patient has no other obvious evidence of other disease. ...no hepatosplenomegaly...no peripheral adenopathy...no significant abnormalities on PET scan to suggest active lymphoma." No treatment is planned at this time. The patient will only be monitored.

    Do not report in situ lymphoma at this time. Currently, lymphoma cannot be reported with a behavior code of in situ (/2) and it would be incorrect to abstract in situ lymphoma as a /3.

    It is true that this is a recently identified pathologic entity. Our experts say that there is still some controversy to be ironed out regarding the criteria for identifying an in situ lymphoma. Their recommendation was to wait until clear guidelines had been established for the pathologists before we start collection of in situ lymphomas. We anticipate collecting these entities in the future.

    		2010
    		20100007 MP/H Rules/Histology--Melanoma: Regarding SINQ #20081044, when would you apply Rule H6 rather than Rule H5 for a cutaneous malignant melanoma given that you normally always have a specific cell type mentioned? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule H6 is used when you do not have a specific cell type other than regressing melanoma, or malignant melanoma, regressing. If you have regressing melanoma with a specific cell type, apply rule H5. 2010
    		20100006

    MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Kidney: In a patient with a history of renal cell carcinoma, would a new primary be accessioned per Rule M10 for a soft tissue mass in the renal fossa not stated to be a metastasis but that was referred to as recurrent renal cell carcinoma, clear cell per the excision pathology report? See Discussion.

    This patient was diagnosed with clear cell carcinoma of the right kidney in 2003, treated with nephrectomy. The tumor was limited to the kidney. An FNA of the pancreas in 11/07 was consistent with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. In 2009 the patient was diagnosed with a right renal fossa mass by CT. The mass was excised on 8/26/09 and showed, "recurrent renal cell ca, clear cell." The path specimen was labeled as, "soft tissue, rt renal fossa." The original 2003 slides were not reviewed and the renal fossa mass was not described as being metastatic.

    If the renal fossa soft tissue mass is a new tumor, the MP/H rules for Other Sites directs you to code it as a new primary per rule M10 [Tumors diagnosed more than one (1) year apart are multiple primaries]. Would this be a new soft tissue tumor per rule M10? Or would this be a recurrence of the original kidney primary?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    This is not a new primary. The patient has metastatic disease from the 2003 kidney primary. Clear cell carcinoma metastasized to the pancreas in 2007 and to the right renal fossa in 2009.

    		 2010
    		20100064

    Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology to be coded for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and/or precursor B acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Pre-B ALL) for cases diagnosed 2010 and later? The Heme Database has two histology codes for this disease, both 9811/3 and 9836/3, which is the correct histology code?

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

    Code histology to 9811/3 [B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma, NOS].

    See the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB, when determining how to code histology for a case. It indicates the code 9811/3 is effective for cases diagnosed 2010 and forward. The 9836/3 is listed as obsolete and refers you to code 9811/3. Make sure to check for a specific subtype of B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma [9812/3 - 9818/3] before assigning the NOS code [9811/3].

    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.

    		2010
    		20100065

    Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is "myeloproliferative syndrome, NOS" synonymous with "myeloproliferative syndrome" and "myeloproliferative disease" and, therefore, reportable under the new hematopoietic rules?

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

    Myeloproliferative syndrome and the myeloproliferative diseases were used in the past to describe myeloproliferative neoplasms. For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, although the term "myeloproliferative syndrome" is not currently used to describe this disease, the synonyms "myeloproliferative syndrome" and "myeloproliferative disease" were added to the database for myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassified [9975/3].

    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.

    		2010
    		20100020 Histology/Behavior--Brain and CNS: How are these fields coded for a "cystic glioma"? Code the histology 9380/3 [Malignant glioma; Glioma, NOS]. There is no specific code for cystic glioma. 2010
    		20100095

    MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Kidney, renal pelvis: In a patient who was never disease free because of multiple recurrences of invasive transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder originally diagnosed in 2004, is an invasive high grade urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis diagnosed in 2010 a new primary? See Discussion.

    Patient has invasive TCC of the bladder diagnosed in 2004, and has never been disease free.

    In 2/18/10 a left renal pelvis wash showed urothelial carcinoma, high grade.

    On 4/7/10 a nephroureterectomy revealed high grade urothelial carcinoma with sarcomatous and squamous differentiation invading through pelvic wall and perihilar soft tissue.

    Is this a new renal pelvis primary?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the renal pelvis is a new primary per rule M7. M7 will be better explained in the revised MP/H rules, but the rationale is that no field effect was present for more than 3 years. Although the bladder CA continued to recur, there were no other organs involved until 2010. M7 is intended to make the renal pelvis a new primary because there was no field effect (no organs other than bladder involved) for more than 3 years.

    		 2010
    		20100011

    Reportability: Should a benign gangliocytic paraganglioma [8683/0] be a reportable (malignant) tumor based on the presence of lymph node metastases? See Discussion.

    "Resection, periampullary duodenum: Gangliocytic paraganglioma, with metastasis to one large periduodunal lymph node. Six other small lymph nodes negative. COMMENT: The primary tumor in the duodenum is made up mainly endocrine cell component. This component appears to have metastasized to a periduodenal lymph node."

    This neoplasm is reportable because it is malignant as proven by the lymph node metastases. Code the behavior as malignant (/3) when there are lymph node metastases.

    		 2010