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: 06/27/2025 08:43 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20190015

Update to current manual/EOD 2018--EOD Primary Tumor: Should Note 6 in Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor for the schemas Fallopian Tube, Ovary, and Primary Peritoneal Carcinoma be revised to exclude pelvic sites? See Discussion.

There is a discrepancy between Notes 3 and 6 in the schemas Fallopian Tube, Ovary, and Primary Peritoneal Carcinoma for EOD Primary Tumor. Note 3 describes extension/discontinuous metastasis to the pelvic sites (code 450) and includes the sigmoid colon, rectosigmoid and rectum since these are all pelvic sites. However, Note 6 also includes rectosigmoid and sigmoid colon.

Note 6 is describing extension/discontinuous metastasis to the abdominal sites (600-750), so it should include rectosigmoid or sigmoid colon (since those are pelvic sites). Note 6 indicates, Intestine, large (except rectum). In the previous Collaborative Stage, the corresponding note used to also include: except sigmoid colon, rectosigmoid and rectum.

Did sigmoid colon and rectosigmoid get removed from the list here? That is, should Note 6 read, Intestine, large (except sigmoid colon, rectosigmoid, rectum)? Involvement of the sigmoid, rectosigmoid, or rectum via peritoneal seeding/metastasis is consistent with T2b disease and would correlate with code 450 (pelvic sites), not codes 600-750 (abdominal sites). Those codes only correlate with T3 and greater disease (i.e., peritoneal seeding/metastasis of the abdomen).

Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention.

Rectosigmoid and Sigmoid Colon belong in Note 3 and not Note 6 for the following EOD schemas: Fallopian Tube, Ovary, and Primary Peritoneal Carcinoma. Rectosigmoid and sigmoid colon will be removed as separate listings from Note 6. The only mention in Note 6 will be: Intestine, large (except rectum, rectosigmoid, and sigmoid colon)

This change will be made for the next update.

 2019
20160012

Reportability--Brain and CNS:  Is a thalamic amyloidoma reportable if so what histology code is used?

Thalamic amyloidoma is not reportable. Amyloidoma (tumoral amyloidosis, amyloid tumor) is a tumor-like deposit of amyloid. It is not neoplastic. Amyloid is a protein derived substance deposited in various clinical settings.

2016
20140031

MP/H Rules: Regarding rules for Renal Pelvis, ureters, bladder & urethra - Please clarify Rule M8. Rule M8 references Table 1, but table 1 is a table of histologies not primary sites, Rule M8 also seems to contradict Table 2 and Rule M10. Does it matter where the first primary is, ie bladder then urethra or bladder then renal pelvis?

Table 2 does not apply to diagnoses in 2007 and later. A watermark over (or near) Table 2 states "Do not use for cases diagnosed on or after 2007." Table 2 lists previous SEER site groupings for cases prior to 2007.

The MP/H rules are in hierarchical order. Use the first rule that applies. When Rule M8 applies, there is no need to check Rule M10. Rule M8 is for the urinary sites listed and derives single primary. Rule M10 is for all sites, except the sites listed in Rule M8, and derives multiple primaries.

It does not matter where the first primary is, i.e. bladder then urethra or bladder then renal pelvis. If there are two or more tumors in two or more of these four sites listed in Rule M8 with histologies listed on Table 1, abstract as a single primary.

2014
20230009

Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Vulva: How many primaries are accessioned when a 2023 diagnosis of keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) (8071/3) of the vulva follows a previous diagnosis of nonkeratinizing SCC (8072/3) of the vulva and the timing rule (M12) does not apply?  See Discussion.

Table 19: Vulva Histologies of the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules does not include entries for either keratinizing or nonkeratinizing squamous cell carcinoma in the “Squamous cell carcinoma, NOS” row. However, these are two distinctly different histologies per the ICD-O-3.2.

All other Solid Tumor Rules schemas include an M Rule instructing one to abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are two or more different subtypes/variants in Column 3 of the Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtype/Variants Table for the schema (e.g., Rule M6 for Lung). The timing of these tumors is stated to be irrelevant. The Notes confirm the tumors may be subtypes/variants of the same or different NOS histologies and tumors in column 3 are all distinctly different histologies (even if they are in the same row). However, the 2023 Other Sites schema appears to be missing this rule.

Should these distinctly different histologies be accessioned as separate primaries? Is an M Rule missing from the Other Sites schema to address distinctly different histologies?

Table 19 is based on WHO 5th Ed Tumors of vulva and squamous cell variants, keratinizing and non-keratinizing, are no longer recommended and are excluded from the 5th Ed. HPV related terminology is now preferred for these neoplasms.

Per consultation with our GYN expert pathologist, based on the information provided, this is likely a single tumor that was not completely excised in the original biopsy. A new tumor in the same site would not appear within 8 months. If you cannot confirm two separate/non-contiguous tumors were present, abstract a single primary per M1. As for histology, the tumor showed both keratinizing and non-keratinizing features and HPV status is unclear. Per our expert, code to SCC 8070/3—keratinization or lack of does not change treatment or prognosis.

Even If there is proof of separate/non-contiguous tumors, our expert still feels this is a single primary coded to SCC 8070/3. Treatment does not differ by keratinization or HPV status. Coding two primaries would be incorrect and inflate incidence rates.

Per our expert, this is an unusual occurrence. The rules cover 85% of cases but there will always be situations that do not fit a rule. This case is an example of that.  A new GYN specific Solid Tumor Rules module is under development and a rule to address this situation could be included.

 2023
20081011 Surgery of Primary Site/CS Reg LN Exam/Scope Regional LN Surgery--Rectum: How are these fields coded when a patient develops a non-tumor related complication that requires an additional sigmoid resection that removes 2 additional lymph nodes one week following a low anterior resection that removed 4 lymph nodes? See Discussion. Patient had a low-lying rectal cancer that was biopsied and then treated with radiation and chemo followed by a low anterior resection. Four nodes were removed. There was no residual tumor. The patient returned one week later due to a rectal bleed, thought to be an abscess. During surgical exploration it was found that the anastomosis had broken down and it was decided to do a sigmoid colectomy. Residual disease was not suspected. Two additional nodes were removed.

Surgery of primary site: Assign code 30 [low anterior resection]. Code the most extensive surgery (i.e. the highest surgery code) applicable.

CS Reg LN Exam: Code 04 [four nodes removed].

Scope of regional lymph node surgery: Code 5 [4 or more regional lymph nodes removed].

The sigmoid colectomy was performed for a surgical complication, thus it was not cancer-directed therapy. The regional lymph nodes removed during that procedure were not removed to diagnose cancer or stage the disease, and they were not removed during the initial treatment. Please see SEER manual for instructions for coding Regional Lymph Node Surgery.

 2008
20031004 Surgery of Primary Site--Skin: When would one use codes 30-33 for this field on a skin primary?

Surgery of Primary Site codes 30-33 under "skin" are used for various types of biopsies followed by a gross excision of the lesion. The two procedures (biopsy and gross excision) may be performed on different days, at different facilities, by different physicians as long as both procedures are performed during the first course of treatment.

Answer applies to both pre-2002 and 2003+ surgury code definitions.

 2003
20210019

Reportability/Histology--Cervix: Is a stratified mucin-producing intraepithelial lesion (SMILE) lesion reportable? Is it reportable if it is invasive SMILE? What is the correct histology? See Discussion.

Cervix, loop electrosurgical excision procedure: Cervix at transformation zone with stratified mucin-producing intraepithelial lesion (SMILE). SMILE is present at the ectocervical margin. An immunohistochemical stain* for p16 demonstrates strong, diffuse positivity in the lesional epithelium. A mucicarmine stain is also positive in the lesional epithelium, supporting the diagnosis of SMILE.

Stratified mucin-producing intraepithelial lesion (SMILE) of the cervix is not reportable. SMILE is a variant of adenocarcinoma in situ and is coded 8140/2. In situ neoplasms of the cervix are not reportable. According to the WHO Classification of tumors, p16 is positive and there is a high Ki-67 proliferation index.

If SMILE is stated to be invasive, it is reportable, as any other invasive cervical malignancy would be reportable.

 2021
20240033

Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Stomach: Is a carcinoid tumor of the stomach diagnosed on 01/01/2023, on a patient who was followed up by Gastrointestinal (GI) and was found to have another stomach carcinoid on 02/01/2024, one primary or two? See Discussion.

Based on the Solid Tumor Rules, we would make this two since it is over one year. According to a previous SINQ question 20110046, we are to code this as one primary. We see patients come back with multiple carcinoid tumors over the years and would like clarification.

Stop at the first rule that applies which is M12. Per note 3: When it is unknown/not documented whether the patient had a recurrence, use date of diagnosis to compute the time interval. This means there are two primaries.

There is a genetic syndrome that causes multiple carcinoid tumors in the GI tract, per our GI expert, and they should be treated as new primaries per M12.

SINQ 20110046 describes a unique situation whereby the subject matter expert felt that the occurrence of multiple tumors was due to an unknown underlying condition driving the proliferation of neuroendocrine cells.

 2024
20041065 Date Therapy Initiated/First-Course of Cancer-Directed Therapy Fields/Summary Stage 2000--Prostate: How do you code these fields for a case that received preventative chemo before a definitive cancer diagnosis? A patient has a "suspicious but not diagnostic" biopsy of the prostate in 09/2002. Doctor said it was not cancer and put the patient on a preventative chemo drug study (GTX-211). The patient returned for a repeat biopsy on 04/2003. Biopsy returned positive for adenocarcinoma. The patient had not been diagnosed when chemo was administered. Can the case be staged using the post-chemo information?

Stage this case the same as all other cases. Use only the information subsequent to the date of diagnosis to code stage and treatment.

The diagnosis date in the example is 04/2003. Do not use information prior to 04/2003 to code stage or treatment. Do not code the preventative chemo as treatment.

 2004
20220039

Reportability/Histology--Eye:  Is “squamous mucosa with high grade dysplasia” equivalent to a diagnosis of “high grade squamous dysplasia?” See Discussion.

A conjunctival biopsy final diagnosis is squamous mucosa with moderate to high grade dysplasia. The diagnosis comment states that immunostains were performed and confirm squamous histology. This seems to imply a high grade squamous dysplasia, rather than a non-reportable high grade dysplasia.  Does this case meet the criteria for reportable high grade squamous dysplasia?

Squamous mucosa with high grade dysplasia is the same as high grade squamous dysplasia in the conjunctiva and is coded to 8077/2.

 2022