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: 02/26/2026 15:42 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20130192 MP/H Rules/Histology--Pleura: How is histology coded when the pathology report final diagnosis is "malignant neoplasm, compatible with malignant mesothelioma" if the COMMENT section of the pathology report indicates the tumor has a mixed epithelial and sarcomatoid pattern? See Discussion. This case was discussed with a pathologist who feels the correct histology should be biphasic mesothelioma (9053/3) because there are both epithelial and sarcomatoid components to this tumor. However, applying the current MP/H Rules, the histology is coded to 9050/3 (mesothelioma, NOS) because the term "pattern" cannot be used to code a more specific histologic type for invasive tumors. If this truly is a biphasic mesothelioma, that data is lost for researchers because the current MP/H Rules fail to capture this information. Should the term pattern be used to code the more specific histology in this case? Code the histology to malignant mesothelioma, NOS [9050/3]. Apply the MP/H Rules as written until they are revised. The word "pattern" and other terms will be reconsidered for the next iteration of the rules. 2013
20130150

MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: What is the histology code histology code for a bladder TUR that demonstrates mixed invasive urothelial and small cell carcinoma? See Discussion.

SINQ 20041104 (prior to 2007 MP/H rules) states to code histology to 8045. The MP/H rules do not address this combination of urothelial and small cell carcinoma. The current MP/H rule that applies is Rule H8, code the higher histology (8120/3). However, if the histology is coded to 8120/3, the fact that small cell carcinoma exists will be lost. If the small cell carcinoma drives the treatment plan/prognosis, shouldn't this situation be reflected in the rules for coding histology?

Code the histology to 8045/3 [mixed small cell carcinoma]. The presence of small cell carcinoma drives the treatment decisions for this case.

This issue will be addressed in the next revision of the MP/H rules.

2013
20130037 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded for a "cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type" that has been verified as a valid diagnosis with prognostic factors including age and number of lesions on the legs?

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

Code this histology to 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma]. Primary cutaneous DLBCL, leg type, is listed as an Alternate Name for DLBCL per the Heme DB.

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.

2013
20130031

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a plasmacytoma of the intervertebral disc is diagnosed in 2010 followed by a diagnosis of immature plasma cell myeloma by a right hip biopsy in 2011? See Discussion.

The patient was diagnosed with intervertebral disc plasmacytoma and had radiation therapy to the pelvic bones in 2010. In 2011 (more than 21 days later) a right hip biopsy revealed immature plasma cell myeloma. There is clinical documentation that this is progression into myeloma. Per the Heme DB (Primary Site(s) and Definition sections) and Rule PH30, in the Heme Manual, the primary site is coded to C421 [bone marrow] and the histology is coded 9732/3 [plasma cell myeloma] when there is a clinical diagnosis of multiple myeloma and/or there is no documentation of a bone marrow biopsy or the results are unknown. This patient did have a bone marrow biopsy that indicates there are an increased plasma cells present; plasma cells represent less than 10%. The skeletal survey and bone scan did not reveal any further lesions.

Is this progression of disease because there is only one lesion in the right hip 8 months after the diagnosis of plasmacytoma? Or is this a second primary based on the right hip biopsy that showed plasma cell myeloma and the physician's documentation of disease progression? Plasmacytomas are usually single lesions. Would this disease process have multiple lesions if they are diagnosed at different times?

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

This case is accessioned as two primaries: Plasmacytoma diagnosed in 2010 and plasma cell myeloma diagnosed in 2011 per Rule M10. The patient has a diagnosis of a solitary plasmacytoma (chronic neoplasm) followed by a diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma (acute neoplasm) diagnosed greater than 21 days later.

The physician is calling this a progression to plasma cell myeloma even though the bone marrow has less than 10% plasma cells, take this statement as progression or a clinical diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma.

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.

 2013
20130023

Reportability--Brain and CNS: Why has reportability changed for "intradural extramedullary schwannomas"? Are all "spinal" schwannomas reportable or only those stated to be "intradural"? See Discussion.

If intradural schwannomas are to be collected for cases diagnosed 2011 and later, why were they not included in the 2012 SEER Manual? Should collection of spinal schwannomas be postponed until the next revision of the MP/H Rules?

The reportability of schwannomas was not initially agreed upon by the standard setters. After the issue was discussed by the CoC, NPCR and SEER Technical Workgroup and an agreement was reached. See #2 under Reportability in the Data Collection Answers from the CoC, NPCR, SEER Technical Workgroup http://www.seer.cancer.gov/registrars/data-collection.html#reportability.

The most accurate and most current instruction is to report these spinal tumors when they arise within the spinal dura or spinal nerve roots, or when they are stated to be "intradural" or "of the nerve root." Do not report these tumors when they arise in the peripheral nerves. The peripheral nerves are the portion of nerve extending beyond the spinal dura.

Spinal cord intradural schwannomas originate in spinal nerve roots. Spinal nerve root is best classified as spinal cord, C720.

2013
20130058 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is EBV-positive hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) reportable when diagnosed in a 5 year old child and resulted in death in less than two months?

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

Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) is not a reportable disease because it is not listed in the Heme DB.

Per our expert pathologist consultant, "HLH is a lymphocyte driven hemophagocytic syndrome which may be either genetically based or caused by over-activated lymphoid cells, often in response to a viral infection. It is an abnormal immune response and is not considered a malignant disease, and is, therefore, not reportable. It is not synonymous with EBV-positive T-cell lymphoproliferative disease of childhood (9724/3)."

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.

2013
20130093 MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: What histology code is used for an adenocarcinoma in situ/bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC) of the lung? See Discussion.

Classification of lung malignancies has undergone a change. The bronchioloalveolar carcinoma histology is being replaced by adenocarcinoma in situ and minimally invasive adenocarcinoma, using an evaluation of lepidic growth pattern in the tumor.

The final diagnosis is "adenocarcinoma in situ/BAC" and the comment states, "The findings in the current biopsy are most compatible with low grade malignant lesions which, in this sample, shows features of adenocarcinoma in situ (former bronchioloalveolar adenocarcinoma), given the proliferation of pneumocytes is limited to the alveolar lining with no evidence of invasion. However, classification of the lesion depends, per reference guidelines (Travis et al. J THOR ONCOL 2011 6,(2):244-275), on its size and its overall histologic features, to rule out the presence of an invasive component and therefore can only be performed upon examination of it in its entirety, upon resection." The radiation oncologist staged this T1N0M0, stage 1 BAC.

Code the histology to 8140/2 [adenocarcinoma in situ, NOS].

The comment for this case is consistent with information from the CAP protocol, which says, "The diagnosis of bronchioloalveolar carcinoma requires exclusion of stromal, vascular, and pleural invasiona requirement that demands the tumor be evaluated histologically in its entirety. It is therefore recommended that a definitive diagnosis of bronchioloalveolar adenocarcinoma not be made on specimens in which the tumor is incompletely represented."

This tumor was not completely resected. Therefore, code to adenocarcinoma in situ based on the information provided.

2013
20130094 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries are accessioned and which M rule applies for a 2010 diagnosis of clear cell adenocarcinoma of the left upper lobe lung followed by a 2012 diagnosis of adenosquamous carcinoma of lung origin without evidence of a primary lung tumor? See Discussion.

Patient was diagnosed with T1 N0 M0 adenocarcinoma with prominent clear cell features [8310/3] in the LUL on 08/05/2010. The patient underwent a lobectomy only.

On 10/09/2012 the patient underwent an iliac bone biopsy showing non-small cell carcinoma with glandular and squamous features [8560/3]. Clinically, the physician is calling this stage IV adenosquamous carcinoma of lung origin involving lymph nodes, spleen and bones. There were no FDG avid pulmonary nodules found. There was no pathologic comparison to the prior lung tumor.

Should the 2012 diagnosis be a new primary because the histology is different from the 2010 diagnosis? Or should this be one primary because there appears to be only metastatic disease with no new primary lung tumor identified in 2012? The choice of one primary seems supported by the fact that the 2012 tumor showed glandular and squamous features, and the 2010 tumor also showed glandular and clear cell (NOS) features. The clear cell could have been a clear cell squamous cell carcinoma. The original tumor was not re-examined.

Accession a single primary, clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] of the left upper lobe lung [C341] diagnosed on 08/05/2010.

The MP/H Rules do not apply to the 2012 diagnosis because only metastatic sites were examined and there was no re-examination of the original 2010 tumor. Therefore, the disease process in 2012 is assumed to be metastatic from the lung primary diagnosed in 2010.

2013
20130104 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site coded for a diagnosis of intrasinusoidal diffuse large B-cell lymphoma involving lymph nodes, the liver and the bone marrow? See Discussion.

Intrasinusoidal DLBCL was diagnosed by liver biopsy. The bone marrow was involved based on abnormal cytogenetic findings. Per a physician's note, a PTA CT Abd/Pelvis showed hepatosplenomegaly and mild periportal/peripancreatic lymphadenopathy. A GI physician stated the lymphoma involves the veins of the liver.

Should the primary site be coded to the liver [C220] and the histology to 9680/3 [DLBCL]?

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

Code the primary site to the intra-abdominal lymph nodes [C772] per Rule PH20.

Code the primary site to the specific lymph node region when multiple lymph node chains within the same region as defined by the ICD-O-3 are involved. Periportal and peripancreatic nodes are both intra-abdominal region nodes.

Based on the information provided, there is involvement of lymph nodes, the liver, spleen and bone marrow, but no other documentation of the primary site. Given that a primary lymphoma of the liver is very rare; it is unlikely that this lymphoma arose from the liver. Involvement of the liver and spleen is very common for patients with lymphoma. The involvement of the liver, spleen and bone marrow is coded in the CS fields as Stage IV involvement.

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.

2013
20130216

Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Need help determining primary site for Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma 9680/3 confirmed pathologically in right ovary and soft tissue left adnexa. No lymph nodes examined pathologically. Patient treated outside and no access to notes. See discussion.

CT A/P massively enlarged uterus with no distention between the vagina, cervix or proximal to mid uterus identified. Highly concerning for malignancy though distinct etiology not clear. Ovarian not favored though not excluded given lack of clearly defined fat planes between uterus and either ovary. Extensive bilateral iliac chain and periaortic/pericaval lymphadenopathy.

Trying to work through Module 7 in the Hem DB. According to the ovary site, regional lymph nodes include the iliac and the para-aortic lymph nodes. This makes me think I should use Rule PH35 (organ and regional nodes). However, using Appendix C in the Hem DB, the iliac lymph nodes are part of the pelvic C775 while the para-aortic (periaortic) are intra-abdominal C772. This makes me wonder if I should go with rule PH36 present in organ and nodes that are not regional.

Use Rule PH25 and code primary site to C569.

First determine if the iliac and para-aortic lymph nodes are regional for Ovary. Use AJCC TNM or Collaborative Stage. Per AJCC 7th edition, regional lymph nodes for ovary include iliac and para-aortic (pg. 419). Therefore, this case involves an organ and its regional lymph nodes. Use appendix C to determine how to code a lymph node primary. It should not be used to determine whether lymph nodes are regional for a specific organ.

2013