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: 10/08/2026 15:49 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20140005 Primary site--Testis: In the absence of a specific statement that the patient's testicle(s) are descended, should the primary site for a testicular tumor be coded as C621 (Descended Testis) when the mass is palpable on physical exam or demonstrated on scrotal ultrasound? See discussion. It seems the non-specific Testis, NOS (C629) code is being over used. Many testis cases have no documentation of the patient's testicular descention. However, testicular tumors in adults are frequently detected by palpation or scrotal ultrasound. An undescended testis (a testis absent from the normal scrotal position) would be non-palpable or not amenable to imaging via a scrotal ultrasound. Unless the testicle is stated to be undescended, it is reasonable to code C621 for primary site. Reserve C629 for cases with minimal or conflicting information. N/A Primary site 2014
20120057 Reportability--Appendix: Is a low grade mucinous neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential with an in situ mucinous cystadenoma component reportable? See Discussion. The patient was diagnosed with pseudomyxoma peritonei and the pathology report final diagnosis stated, "Low grade mucinous neoplasm, of uncertain malignant potential, involving a dilated appendix (5cm) with the following features: In situ mucinous cystadenoma component is identified, with low-grade cytology of neoplastic epithelium." Does the presence of an in situ component make this mucinous cystadenoma of the appendix reportable based on the ICD-O-3 matrix rule?

This diagnosis is not reportable. Cystadenoma is not reportable. The "in situ" description in this case does not make cystadenoma reportable.

According to our expert pathologist consultant, this is a "non-invasive, low grade, epithelial proliferation in an often cystic appendiceal tumor, 8480/1. If this has leaked or ruptured it can seed the peritoneal cavity causing pseudomyxoma peritonei."

N/A N/A 2012
20010131 Histology (Pre-2007): Can adenocarcinoma in either a villous or tubulovillous polyp or adenoma be coded as histology for sites other than colon or rectum? See discussion. When adenocarcinoma of the endometrium arises in a villoglandular polyp is the histology coded as 8263/3?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8263/3 [adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma]. Histology codes 8261 [adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma] and 8263 [adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma] are used for non-colorectal sites when the cancer arises in a polyp.

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 N/A Histology 2001
20120084 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries/Histology: How many primaries are accessioned and how is the histology coded if a patient has a 1.2 cm hepatocellular carcinoma and a 7 cm hepatocellular carcinoma, solid, acinar and trabecular type? See Discussion. FINAL Diagnosis: 2 separate lesions of the liver 1)1.2 cm hepatocellular carcinoma and 2) 7 cm hepatocellular carcinoma, solid, acinar, and trabecular type.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession a single primary, hepatocellular carcinoma [8170/3].

The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) and go to the Other Sites MP rules because liver does not have site specific rules developed.

Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. There is one tumor with HCC and another tumor with a specific type of HCC.

Hepatocellular carcinomas vary and often display different architectural patterns such as solid, acinar and trabecular.

 N/A Histology 2012
20020011 Histology (Pre-2007): What code should be assigned to acinar adenocarcinoma and ductal adenocarcinoma?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Assign code 8255 [Adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes]. According to histology rule #4 for a single tumor on page 86 of the 2004 SEER manual, use a combination code if one exists.

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 N/A Histology 2002
20120090 First course treatment/Chemotherapy: Can a drug be coded as treatment for primary sites or histologies not listed for that drug in the SEER*Rx Database? See Discussion.

The patient was diagnosed with chronic myelogenous leukemia in 2008 followed by a diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia in 2011. Per the physician statement, the patient started nilotinib in 10/2011 for CML.

The SEER*Rx Database lists CML and GIST as the only primary site/histology combinations treated using nilotinib. Can nilotinib also be coded as treatment for the CLL primary?

 SEER*Rx lists the approved sites/histologies for each drug. However, if you have a physician statement that indicates the drug was given for another site/histology, code the agent as treatment for that site/histology. N/A Chemotherapy, First course treatment 2012
20150050

Reportability: Is penile intraepithelial neoplasia, differentiated type, reportable? See discussion.

Foreskin circumcision shows: Penile intraepithelial neoplasia, differentiated type (differentiated PeIN). If reportable, how would the histology and behavior be coded? Is this behavior /2?

For cases diagnosed 2018 and later

Differentiated penile intraepithelial neoplasia (differentiated PeIN), is reportable (8071/2).

Please note: Penile intraepithelial neoplasia, grade 3 (PeIN 3) is also reportable to SEER (C600-C609, 8077/2).

 N/A N/A 2015
20140040

Reportability/Primary Site--Lip: Is a right lower lip (NOS) squamous cell carcinoma reportable when the microscopic description states the tumor arises from the epidermis and extends through the dermis? See discussion.

We are having difficulty determining whether the primary site is lip, NOS (C009) or skin of lip (C440). Usually we look for a statement of “skin” or “mucosa” in the microscopic description if the specimen label is only lip, NOS as instructed by the previous SINQ 20051049. Is a statement of "epidermis" or "dermis" in the microscopic description enough to indicate carcinoma is arising in the skin of the lip (C440) and thus not reportable?

This case is interpreted as skin of lip and not reportable. According to our expert pathologist consultant, the pathologist in this case "is specifically saying "epidermis" and "dermis" and I would have to think it is skin, and thus not reportable."

N/A Primary site 2014
20091123

Reportability: Is a tumor reportable if the pathology report indicates a non-reportable diagnosis at the time the specimen is removed but subsequent clinical statements state the patient had a reportable tumor? See Discussion.

The 2007 SEER Manual (page 3) states that cases diagnosed clinically are reportable. Exception 2 states if enough time has passed that it is reasonable to assume the physician has seen the negative pathology report, but the clinician continues to call this a reportable disease, accession the case.

SEER reporting guidelines state that severe dysplasia is not reportable, however, many clinicians regard it to be equivalent to carcinoma in situ.

Example 1: In 09-2007 the pathology report for excisional biopsy of right floor of mouth states the final diagnosis is severe dysplasia. At the time, the case is not accessioned based on non-reportable pathology. Patient is subsequently admitted in 3-09. According to the clinical history the patient was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma in 2007 and treated with laser. Is this reportable? If yes, how is behavior to be coded? How is "Ambiguous Terminology at Diagnosis" to be coded?

Example 2: In 2-08, the pathology report for a punch biopsy of a skin lesion states the final diagnosis is atypical melanocytic hyperplasia. In 3-08, patient is admitted for re-excision. The clinical diagnosis states re-excision being done for melanoma in situ.

Reference: SINQ 20061123

A tumor that is non-reportable based on the pathology report diagnosis should not be accessioned if later clinician statements mistakenly refer to it as a reportable tumor. The exception in the 2007 SEER manual on page 3 is intended to allow the registrar to accession a case when the clinician actually disagrees with the pathology report and clinically diagnoses a reportable tumor.

 N/A N/A 2009
20031152 Ambiguous Terminology/Histology (Pre-2007): How do we code histology when there is a difference between the histology mentioned on a suspicious cytology and the clinical diagnosis by the treating physician? See Description. An FNA of pancreas is stated as "highly atypical cells present, suspicious for pancreatic ductal carcinoma." The attending physician states the patient has pancreatic carcinoma. Can histology be coded 8500/3 [infiltrating duct carcinoma, NOS] or should it be 8010/3 [carcinoma, NOS]?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the histology from a suspicious cytology when this histology is supported by the clinical diagnosis.

Code the example above to 8010/3 [Carcinoma, NOS].

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 N/A Histology 2003