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 00:09 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20250005

Reportability/Behavior--Ovary: Is ovarian mucinous borderline tumor with foci of multifocal intraepithelial carcinoma reportable?

Report ovarian mucinous borderline tumor with foci of multifocal intraepithelial carcinoma. The foci of intraepithelial carcinoma makes this reportable. See the list of synonyms for in situ in the SEER Manual, Behavior Code data item.

 Ovary Behavior 2025
20031130 Primary site--Melanoma: Should melanoma of the nipple be coded to C50.0 [Nipple] or C44.5 [Skin of the trunk]? Code to C44.5 [skin of trunk]. External melanoma is an epidermal malignancy, beginning in melanocytes in the basal layer of the epidermis. C50.0 excludes skin of breast. Melanoma Primary site 2003
20170018

MPH Rules/Multiple primaries--Melanoma: Does MP/H Rule M7 (diagnosed more than 60 days apart) apply to invasive melanoma cases with margins positive for in situ melanoma, or are these further excision of the original diagnosis and the same primary, even when it appears treatment was complete after the initial excision? See Discussion.

A dementia patient has been managed for a persistent right cheek skin lesion that has been slow growing for about 5 years. It was biopsied in 12/23/15 revealing a Breslow 0.12 mm lentigo maligna melanoma by an outside provider. A larger resection of the lesion on 2/3/16 demonstrated a Breslow 0.30 mm lentigo maligna melanoma with melanoma in situ present at the margins per the available pathology report. There was no statement in the record that any additional treatment was planned or necessary.

Patient healed well from the 2/3/16 procedure but developed a recurrent lesion in May that was biopsied on 5/10/16 by the same outside provider which again reveal lentigo maligna melanoma. 7/5/16 Reexcision at the current facility revealed a Breslow 6.1 mm lentigo maligna melanoma, Clarks level V. This was a cutaneous tumor per the path report and not a subcutaneous nodule. Clinically, the MD called this a , but there was no slide comparison to the previous melanoma.

In auditing files for expected (but not received) abstracts due from facilities, we've observed these types of cases not being consistently reported as multiple primaries.

Rule M7 pertains to separate tumors. Rule M7 does not apply to invasive melanoma cases with margins positive for in situ melanoma.

Based on the information provided, it is not clear whether or not the 5/10/16 diagnosis is a separate lesion or the same lesion that was diagnosed earlier.

 Melanoma N/A 2017
20020057 Histology (Pre-2007)--Melanoma: What code is used to represent the histology "radial growth phase: melanoma, superficial spreading type; vertical growth phase: epithelioid type"? See discussion. Can the "growth phase" be used to code histology? If so, would the histology be epithelioid cell melanoma (8771/3)?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8771/3 [epithelioid cell melanoma]. The "growth phase" information in this case describes the horizontal spread and the "invasive" or vertical growth through the layers of skin.

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.

 Melanoma Histology 2002
20200055

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Melanoma: Should a case with treatment delayed due to COVID-19 be abstracted as one or two primaries? It is uncertain if the invasive tumor would be a new tumor, or deeper extension/disease progression from the original tumor. See Discussion.

11/18/2019 Left 1st Digit/Thumb Biopsy: Atypical Melanocytic Proliferation consistent with Early Acral Lentiginous Melanoma in situ. Margins Positive. (Not a reportable diagnosis for 2019.)

12/5/2019 Left 1st Digit Shave Biopsies: Malignant Melanoma in situ. Margins Positive.

1/15/2020 Started Aldara (treatment plan: use for ~3 months then Mohs/excision, but due to COVID could not get resection until 7/2020).

7/29/2020 Left Thumb Excision: Residual Melanoma in situ. Margins Positive. Treatment Plan: re-excision.

8/6/2020 Left Thumb Re-Excision: Atypical Lentiginous Melanocytic Proliferation at the 12-2 margin may represent the advancing edge of melanoma in situ. (8/19/2020 Plan to treat the 12-2 margin as positive with in situ; plan for re-excision).

8/20/2020 Left Thumb Re-Excision & Left Nail Plate Excision: Malignant Acral Lentiginous Melanoma with extensive melanoma in situ. Breslow 1.3mm. Margins Positive. Nail plate & bed epithelium with hemorrhage and a mild increase in melanocyte density likely represent melanoma in situ.

9/4/2020 Left thumb partial amputation & Left axillary Sentinel Lymph Node Excision: Residual Malignant Melanoma in situ. 0/3 sentinel nodes positive.

Abstract a single primary using the Solid Tumor Rules for melanoma. Report this melanoma as invasive (/3) as documented in the information from 8/20/2020. The treatment delay does not influence the number of primaries to be reported. Registries in SEER regions: Report the COVID-related information as directed in the COVID-19 Abstraction Guidelines, https://seer.cancer.gov/tools/covid-19/.

 Melanoma N/A 2020
20120030

MP/H Rules/Histology- -Melanoma: What is the correct histology code if the final diagnosis for an excisional biopsy specimen is reported as "malignant melanoma, superficial spreading type" but the under the "cell type" section in the CAP protocol layout of the pathology report it lists "cell type: epithelioid"? See Discussion.

The MP/H rules do not address the concept of "cell type" for melanomas when the pathologist uses the CAP protocol to report findings and the cell type listed in that section of the report differs from the specific cell type mentioned in the final diagnosis. Does a case have two specific cell types when the final diagnosis and the "cell type" sections of a single pathology report indicate two more specific melanoma histologies?

Pre-2007 SINQ entries indicate the cell type should be coded. However, if it differs from the specific cell type listed in the final diagnosis does it matter? Do the MP/H rules still take the cell type into account?

Code the histology to malignant melanoma, superficial spreading type [8743/3] based on the final diagnosis. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a melanoma primary, use the Melanoma Histology rules to determine the histology code because there are site specific rules for cutaneous melanomas.

Start at Rule H1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order from Rule H1 to Rule H10. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the applicable Module. Code the more specific histologic term when the diagnosis is melanoma, NOS [8720] with a single specific type (i.e., superficial spreading) mentioned in the final diagnosis.

The final diagnosis takes precedence over the CAP protocol. The CAP protocol may be used when it provides additional or noncontradictory information, but that does not apply in this case.

 Melanoma Histology 2012
20081044 MP/H Rules/Behavior--Melanoma of Skin: How are histology and behavior coded for a "malignant melanoma in situ with regression"? See Discussion. Per the microscopic portion of the path report, there is a zone of regression within the confines of the lesion, such that the possibility of antecedent invasive disease at the site cannot be ruled out with certainty.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Code malignant melanoma in situ with regression to 8720/2 [Melanoma in situ].

Code the histology according to the histologic type specified in the pathology report final diagnosis. Code the behavior as specified in the pathology report. Regression does not affect the coding of histology or behavior. See Melanoma Histology Coding rule H5. See 2007 SEER manual instructions for coding behavior, page 84.

 Melanoma Behavior 2008
20000418 Measured Thickness/EOD-Extension--Melanoma: If the Clark's level is not provided, can it be estimated using the depth of invasion provided in the pathology report and associating that number with the Clark's levels identified in the SEER Summary Staging Guide?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

No. Do not use the SEER Summary Stage Guide or any other guide to derive an estimated Clark's level from the thickness identified in the pathology report. The two measurements need to come directly from the pathology report. Each is coded separately in EOD. Thickness is collected in a separate field so we can capture the actual measurement stated in the pathology report. This has made it possible for us to group depth of invasion for analysis purposes in any manner we might wish. In addition, we can always collapse this information to the Summary Stage or TNM using the AJCC rules. AJCC rules use both depth of invasion and thickness in determining pathologic staging, and, if there is an inconsistency between them, the rules say code to the higher T classification, that is, the least favorable finding.

 Melanoma N/A 2000
20071061 Histology--Melanoma: How is a "malignant melanoma arising in a melanocytic nevus" coded?

The histology code is 8720/3 [malignant melanoma, NOS].

There is no specific code for melanoma arising in melanocytic nevus. According to our pathologist consultant, this is likely because nevi are so common, melanoma arising in association with them is common and appears to have no bearing on prognosis or treatment. Most pathologists do not include the nevus in the diagnosis of melanoma, even when they see it.

Code melanomas arising in melanocytic nevi to the appropriate melanoma code, probably 8720, 8721, or 8743 in most cases.

 Melanoma Histology 2007
20031006 EOD/Surgery of Primary Site--Melanoma: If a melanoma primary site is other than skin, vulva, penis, or scrotum should these fields be coded using melanoma schemes? See discussion. Should a melanoma of the cervix be coded using the melanoma or the cervix schemes for these fields? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Use the EOD and surgery code schemes for cervix uteri. The EOD scheme for melanoma excludes melanoma of the cervix uteri. The surgery code scheme for skin excludes cervix uteri. Melanoma Surgery of Primary Site 2003