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: 01/01/2026 22:49 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20120079 Reportability: Is positive urine cytology (ex: malignant cells interpreted as carcinoma) by itself reportable? If so, is the case coded to bladder by default or is is coded to C689, urinary system, NOS?

Urine cytology positive for malignancy is reportable. Code the primary site to C689 in the absence of any other information.

However, if a subsequent biopsy of a urinary site is negative, do not report the case.

For 2013 diagnoses and forward, report these cases when they are encountered. Do not implement new/additional casefinding methods to capture these cases.

As always, do not report cytology cases with ambiguous terminology.

2012
20120014 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology coded if the pathology report final diagnosis is "plasma cell dyscrasia, consistent with multiple myeloma" when no further work-up is performed because the patient either refuses additional testing or dies?

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

Code the histology to 9732/3 [multiple myeloma].

Ambiguous terminology is used to accession cases (determine reportability) because it has been used for over 30 years to do so. Any deviation from using ambiguous terminology to determine case reportability would cause the reporting of incidence counts to vary. In this case, there was a reportable, ambiguous terminology diagnosis of multiple myeloma on the pathology report.

The instruction "Do not code histology based on ambiguous terminology" is intended to be used when there is a reportable and reportable stated in the diagnosis. Ambiguous terminology cannot be used to report the more specific diagnosis in cases of Heme & Lymphoid neoplasms. For example, if the pathology report final diagnosis was "Myeloproliferative neoplasm, probably Polycythemia Vera" the histology would be coded as myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable [9975/3]. The ambiguous terminology indicates that the genetic testing, immunophenotyping, etc., probably are not complete or are not diagnostic of the more specific disease. Wait to code the histology until there is a definite diagnosis given.

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.

2012
20120017

Reportability: Is a low-grade neuroendocrine neoplasm with gastrin expression found in a periportal lymph node reportable if the clinical impression is compatible with a gastrinoma? See Discussion.

SINQ 20110095 states that "low-grade neuroendocrine neoplasm/carcinoid tumor with expression of gastrin" is reportable. However, in this case "carcinoid tumor" is not mentioned. Is this case reportable if the expression "carcinoid tumor" is missing in the diagnosis of the pathology report? Also, does the fact that the gastrinoma was found in a lymph node affect reportability?

This is a reportable case. Code the histology as malignant gastrinoma [8153/3].

Gastrinomas are usually malignant. This one is apparently present in a metastatic site (periportal lymph node) which confirms the malignancy.

 2012
20120059 Primary site/Reportability--Breast: Is a "right nipple skin" biopsy that demonstrates squamous cell carcinoma reportable using a primary site of C500? See Discussion. In the 2011 SEER Manual Reportability Examples, example 3, it states a "biopsy-proven squamous cell carcinoma of the nipple" is reportable when the subsequent resection shows "no evidence of residual malignancy in the nipple epidermis." However, this example does not specify the biopsy is from the nipple skin and the ICD-O-3 does not list nipple skin as a synonym for code C500.

Because the site is specifically stated to "skin" of nipple [C44.5], this case is not reportable.

If possible, you may wish to confirm the type of biopsy performed. If the biopsy was done by FNA or needle biopsy, the biopsy tissue should contain a full-thickness of skin and subcutaneous breast (nipple) tissue. If that is the case, this tumor would likely be a reportable squamous cell carcinoma of nipple [C50.0]. If, however, this was a punch biopsy it is more likely a non-reportable squamous cell carcinoma of the skin [C44.5].

2012
20120002

Histology/Diagnostic confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are histology and diagnostic confirmation coded when a patient has a clinical diagnosis of lymphoma but a pathologic diagnosis of malignant neoplasm, NOS? See Discussion.

This patient had CT scans showing extensive bilateral retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy suspicious for lymphoma and left axillary lymphadenopathy. Thin core biopsies were done of the left axillary lymph nodes and immunohistology pathology was read as malignant neoplasm with extensive necrosis. Flow cytometry analysis of the sample shows no definitive or sufficient CD45+ events for informative analysis. Karyotype analysis could not be performed on this specimen due to inadequate sample. FISH analysis using IGH break apart probe showed no evidence of clonal rearrangement in limited number of cells available for analysis. The physician's diagnosis is probable lymphoma, no further workup felt necessary because patient would not tolerate chemotherapy anyway and hospice was felt most appropriate care for patient.

The definitive diagnostic method for lymphoma, NOS is histologic confirmation, but the only histologic confirmation was of "malignant neoplasm with extensive necrosis." Should the histology and diagnostic confirmation be coded as lymphoma, NOS [9590/3] and imaging without microscopic confirmation [7] or malignancy, NOS [8000/3] and positive histology [1]?

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

Code the histology to 9590/3 [malignant lymphoma, NOS] and the diagnostic confirmation to 7 [radiology and other imaging techniques without microscopic confirmation]. Per the Diagnostic Confirmation Coding Instructions for Heme and Lymphatic Neoplasms, use code 1 when ONLY the biopsy was used to diagnose the specific histology. The biopsy only confirmed a malignancy; the scan confirmed the specific diagnosis of lymphoma.

Note that a clinical diagnosis can be a definitive diagnostic method for malignant lymphoma, NOS. In this case, the biopsy was inadequate and a more specific diagnosis could not be made by histology. Because no further work-up was pursued, this NOS diagnosis of malignant lymphoma was a clinical diagnosis only.

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.

2012
20120073 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site coded for a 2011 diagnosis of systemic mastocytosis? See Discusson. Patient presented with leukopenia, anemia and monoclonal gammopathy. A bone marrow biopsy in 2011 showed systemic mastocytosis [9741/3]. A subsequent shave biopsy of abdominal skin showed histologic features that were consistent with a diagnosis of mastocytosis. A later bone marrow biopsy was subsequently performed that showed progressive systemic mastocytosis.

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

Per Rule PH30, use the Heme DB to determine the primary site and histology when rules PH1-PH29 do not apply. The Heme DB indicates the primary site for systemic mastocytosis is always coded to C421 [bone marrow].

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.

2012
20120001 Multiple primaries/Recurrence--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are abstracted if a patient was diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in 2001 and was diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma involving the larynx in 2011? See Discussion. Does the medical oncologist's statement that this is a second malignancy, rather than a recurrence, given the length of the disease-free interval, affect the number of primaries abstracted?

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

Abstract a single primary per Rule M2; a single histology is a single primary diagnosed. The histology code for both the 2001 and 2011 diagnoses is 9680/3[diffuse large B-cell lymphoma]. Case is coded as diagnosed in 2001.

The hematopoietic physician experts say that the issue with lymphomas is that the patient may be disease-free then recur years later. Even though years have passed, this is still a recurrence or relapse. Currently, there are no molecular markers that are able to distinguish "new primaries" from recurrences. There are also no established criteria for timing rules that could be used to determine a new primary from a recurrence.

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.

2012
20120048 MP/H Rules/Primary site: Can you clarify how you interpreted the term "synchronous" to appropriately code the primary site to C68.9 [urinary tract] for SINQ 20110119 and did not use that code for SINQ 20100025 when both cases used MP/H Rule M8 to determine the number of primaries? See Discussion.

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.

For the purpose of applying the MP/H rules, the term "synchronous" means that the two diagnoses occurred at the same time or less than or equal to 60 days apart.

The case in SINQ 20100025 was not synchronous. The first lesion in the renal pelvis [C65.9] occurred in 1/08 and the subsequent tumors were diagnosed in 5/09, more than one year apart. In this case, you do not go back to change the primary site code on the original abstract.

The case in SINQ 20110119 was diagnosed synchronously, the first lesion in the bladder [C67.9] was diagnosed in 11/09 and the second lesion in the renal pelvis [C65.9] was diagnosed in 12/09, less than 60 days apart. Because the lesions were synchronous, the primary site is coded urinary system, NOS [C68.9].

2012
20120060 Primary Site/Reportability: What is the primary site and reportability status of a "pancreatic endocrine neoplasm" that arises in the heterotopic pancreas of the splenic hilum that is stated to be a "well-differentiated endocrine tumor, uncertain behavior per the WHO classification"? See Discussion.

SINQ 20120035 states that well differentiated pancreatic endocrine neoplasms should be reported with histology code 8240/3. However, the pathology report provides the WHO Classification which states "uncertain behavior." Should this tumor still be reported as 8240/3?

If reportable, how is the primary site coded? The tumor arose in heterotopic pancreas (in the splenic hilum), which is pancreatic tissue found outside the usual anatomical location of the pancreas. Per the pathology report, the tumor did not invade the spleen. Should the primary site be coded to C48.1 [mesentery]? The patient is female and the coding schema for "Peritoneum for Females" would apply to the case. However, none of those CS extension codes seem to apply to this localized case.

This case is reportable. Code the primary site to C25.9 [pancreas, NOS] and the histology to 8240/3 [neuroendocrine tumor (NET), Grade 1].

Per the 2012 SEER Manual, code the site in which the primary tumor originated. This neoplasm arose in pancreatic tissue and will behave accordingly, even though this pancreatic tissue is not located in the usual place.

Pancreatic endocrine and neuroendocrine neoplasms are essentially the same thing. However, they are described in two different WHO classifications; the endocrine classification and the digestive system classification. The digestive system classification is more recent, and is preferred by our expert pathologist consultant. The term "neuroendocrine" is to be used now, rather than "endocrine." In the pancreas, "well differentiated endocrine tumor" is synonymous with "neuroendocrine tumor (NET) Grade 1" and is coded 8240/3.

2012
20120092 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries/Recurrence -- Lung: How many primaries are accessioned if a diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma of the lung is followed three years later by a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the lung if the pathologist reviews all the slides and states the subsequent diagnosis is a recurrence? See Discussion.

7/12/2007 Left upper lobe lung lobectomy: Squamous cell carcinoma.

3/09/2010 Left lung completion pneumonectomy: Adenocarcinoma, predominantly acinar. The diagnosis comment on the pathology report indicates the previous lobectomy specimen from 2007 was reviewed and "there are areas that appear histologically similar to the current neoplasm. Thus, the findings are most compatible with recurrence."

Despite the difference in histology, is this a single primary per the MP/H Coding Rules, General Information instruction 7 because the pathologist did refer to the 3/9/2010 diagnosis as a "recurrence" of the 7/12/2007 diagnosis after reviewing the slides?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession a single primary, left upper lobe squamous cell carcinoma diagnosed 7/27/2007.

The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Go to the General Information notes for Determining Multiple Primaries for Solid Malignant Tumors in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual.

General Information Rule 7 states "Use the multiple primary rules as written unless a pathologist compares the present tumor to the "original" tumor and states that this tumor is a recurrence of cancer from the previous primary."

Accession a single primary. Do not apply the Multiple Primary rules because the pathologist compared the 2007 and 2010 slides and determined this was a recurrence and not a new primary.

2012