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: 01/13/2026 20:40 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20160020

Reportability/Histology-Gallbladder: Is high grade biliary intraepithelial neoplasia of the gallbladder reportable?

High grade biliary intraepithelial neoplasia of the gallbladder is reportable. Assign code 8148/2. It is also known as biliary intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3, or BilIN-3.

2016
20160018

Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is a colloid cyst at the foramen of Monro reportable?

Colloid cyst at the foramen of Monro is not reportable. Colloid cysts are endodermal congenital malformations and do not have an ICD-O-3 code. See the Glossary for Registrars, http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/glossary/view/542eeea1102c1d14697ef8ab/?q=colloid

2016
20160033

First course teatment/Surgery of Primary Site: Is microwave ablation (using heat not alcohol) coded to a surgery code? See Discussion.

As of 2013, radiofrequency ablation is coded to "radiation therapy," chemoembolization is coded to "chemotherapy," and microwave ablation code to "other."  Or, is coding microwave ablation (using heat not alcohol) coded to surgical code "16"? The latest documentation year that I could find in the SEER website regarding the above was 2013. I would appreciate clarification/confirmation of correct coding especially for microwave ablation.

According to a consensus answer of the technical advisory group, a small group of representatives from each standard setter that meets periodically, microwave tumor ablation should be coded as surgery.  For liver, assign code 16 (Heat-Radio-Frequency ablation (RFA); for kidney, assign code 15 (Thermal ablation).

2016
20160026

MP/H/Histology--Pituitary: Would you code Crooke cell adenoma as 8272/0 pituitary adenoma?

Yes, code Crooke cell adenoma to 8272/0 pituitary adenoma. According to the WHO classification, it is a variant of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) producing adenoma (8272/0).

2016
20160079

First course treatment/Chemotherapy: Is metronomic chemotherapy coded as chemotherapy?

Code metronomic chemotherapy as chemotherapy. Metronomic chemotherapy, also referred to as low-dose metronomic (LDM) chemotherapy, is an emerging cancer treatment approach which administers relatively low doses of traditional chemotherapy drugs over a long period of time and without ‘breaks’ in treatment. By using lower doses this method of treatment minimizes the side effects of traditional chemotherapy.

2016
20170052

MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: Is urothelial carcinoma, high-grade, predominantly solid type, coded as 8120/3 or 8230/3? See Discussion.

Urinary bladder: Invasive urothelial carcinoma, high-grade, 4.5cm, predominantly solid type, arising in background of carcinoma in-situ, carcinoma grossly extends into perivesical adipose tissue; lymph-vascular invasion is seen.

Assign histology code 8120/3, urothelial carcinoma, NOS. Solid type is not a recognized variant of urothelial tumors and likely represents the appearance of the urothelial cells within the tumor and not a specific histologic type.

 2017
20170066

2016 SEER Manual/Primary Site--Corpus Uteri: Is the primary site C541 (endometrium) or C543 (uterine fundus) when the histology states endometrial adenocarcinoma, endometrioid type, but tumor site states fundus? See Discussion.

Pathology--Final description: Uterus, cervix, bilateral fallopian tubes and ovaries, total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy: Endometrial adenocarcinoma, endometrioid type, well differentiated, FIGO 1/3. Myometrial invasion: focal myometrial invasion (30% of myometrium) Tumor size: 2 x2 cm Tumor site: Fundus, exophytic/polypoid lesion Gross description: The 3.0 cm in length by 2.5 cm in diameter triangular endometrium is tan-red and smooth with a 2.0 x 2.0 cm tan-pink, exophytic fundic mass which extends on to both anterior and posterior aspects, 4.1 cm from the os.

We recommend coding endometrium, C541, as the primary site for this case. While coding to fundus would not be incorrect, according to our expert pathologist consultant, "it is more appropriate in a setting in which the region of the uterus is of importance, e.g. with a myoma or a myosarcoma, or if the endometrioid carcinoma were NOT in the endometrium but arising in a focus of adenomyosis within the fundic myometrium."

 2017
20170042

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) with large cell transformation equivalent to a diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) without mention of Richter transformation or Richter Syndrome? See Discussion.

The patient has a history of CLL/SLL dating back to 2007, but has had progressive disease with development of a new left frontal brain tumor. The brain tumor resection proved CLL/SLL with large cell transformation, but neither the pathologist nor the managing physician called this a Richter transformation, Richter syndrome or provided a diagnosis of DLBCL. However, a large cell transformation of CLL/SLL is a Richter transformation. Can this be accessioned as a new acute neoplasm per Rule M10?

Accession as multiple primaries according to Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Coding Manual Rule M10. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) followed by CLL/SLL with large cell transformation is multiple primaries because it is a chronic neoplasm followed by an acute neoplasm, more than 21 days in this case.

 2017
20170036

Grade--Prostate: How are the prostate-related fields completed when documentation in pathology reports only includes one of the new grade groups? See Discussion.

Our pathologists have starting to use a new prostate cancer grading system that was adopted by WHO in 2016. The new grading scheme correlates with the prior Gleason grading scheme as follows:

Grade Group 1 = Gleason score 6 or less

Grade Group 2 = Gleason score 3+4=7

Grade Group 3 = Gleason score 4+3 = 7

Grade Group 4 = Gleason score 8

Grade Group 5 = Gleason score 9-10

Our pathologists are no longer dictating the Gleason Primary and Secondary Pattern values nor the Gleason's Score. Reverse correlation from the new grade groups to the required patterns and score are difficult with Grade Groups 2 and 3 needing to be distinguished from one another and Grade Group 5 including two unique scores.

The prostate-related fields include:

Collaborative Site Specific Factor 7: Gleason's Primary Pattern and Secondary Pattern Values on Needle Core Biopsy/TURP

Collaborative Site Specific Factor 8: Gleason's Score On Needle Core Biopsy/TURP

Collaborative Site Specific Factor 9: Gleason's Primary Pattern and Secondary Pattern Values on Prostatectomy/Autopsy

Collaborative Site Specific Factor 10: Gleason's Score on Prostatectomy/Autopsy

When all you have is the grade group, you may use the following table to convert the Prostate Grade Groups to the appropriate code for the indicated fields.

Grade Group Gleason Score Gleason Pattern SSF7 SSF8 SSF9 SSF10 Grade/diff

Grade Group 1 6 or less <=3+3 099 999 099 999 1

Grade Group 2 7 3+4 034 007 034 007 2

Grade Group 3 7 4+3 043 007 043 007 2

Grade Group 4 8 4+4, 3+5, 5+3 999 999 999 999 3

Grade Group 5 9-10 4+5, 5+4, 5+5 099 999 099 999 3

 2017
20170063

Reportability/Behavior--Ovary: Is adult granulosa cell tumor a reportable malignant tumor if the primary ovarian tumor ruptured intraoperatively, the peritoneum was contaminated, and the patient underwent adjuvant treatment with chemotherapy given the increased risk of recurrence due to intraoperative tumor spill? See Discussion.

Per SINQ 20130176 and 20140034, adult granulosa cell tumors of the ovary are reportable malignant tumors when there are peritoneal implants or metastases. The SINQ responses describe how these adult granulosa cell tumors are different from low malignant potential (LMP) epithelial ovarian tumors. Would these SINQ scenarios apply to a case with intraoperative tumor rupture that resulted in peritoneal tumor?

In this case, the pathologist indicated these excised peritoneal specimens were favored to be intraoperative contamination with adult granulosa cell tumor. However, the oncologist went on to treat this patient as high risk with chemotherapy. The oncologist only described one of the pelvic peritoneal implants as possibly contamination due to the rupture. The oncologist never indicated the tumors were definitely peritoneal implants. Should the behavior of this tumor be /1 because the peritoneal tumor appears to be contamination, or /3 because the oncologist treated this patient as high risk?

If the "implants" were due to intraoperative contamination and were not present prior to surgery, do not interpret them as indicative of malignancy. The behavior of this tumor is /1.

 2017