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 15:08 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20130001

Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are hemangioma, NOS (9120/0), cavernous hemangioma (9121/0) or venous hemangioma (9122/0) reportable when they arise in the brain or CNS?

 

Hemangioma, NOS (9120/0) and cavernous hemangioma (9121/0) arising in the dura and parenchyma of the brain/CNS are reportable.

Venous angiomas (9122/0) are not reportable wherever they arise. The primary site for venous hemangioma arising in the brain is blood vessel (C490). The combination of 9122/0 and C490 is not reportable. This is a venous abnormality. Previously called venous angiomas, these are currently referred to as a developmental venous anomalies (DVA).

Brain and CNS N/A 2013
20130014 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is Castleman disease reportable when diagnosed 2010 and later? When checking Castleman disease in the Hematopoietic Database, the result is a reportable histology code 9738/3. However, per an online search, Castleman disease is a very rare disorder characterized by non-cancerous growths (tumors).

Updated May 2026

Castleman disease, NOS, is not reportable for any year of diagnosis. However, when Castleman disease is diagnosed in connection with large B-cell lymphoma [9738/3], it is reportable.

Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms N/A 2013
20010144 EOD-Extension--Cervix: How do you code tumor extension described as "the in situ lesion extends from the cervix to the mucosa of the vagina"? See discussion. Example: Cone biopsy of cervix and vaginal vault both show ca in situ. The op report stated: "lesion extending from the left lateral portion of the cervix onto the left lateral portion of the vagina." The pathologist stated it "appeared to be an in situ lesion extending from the cervix to the mucosa of the vagina."

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the Primary Site to C53.9 [Cervix uteri] and the EOD-Extension filed to 00 [in situ]. In situ is a measurement of invasion. Extension of the cervical in situ carcinoma via the mucosa to the vagina does not affect the EOD extension code.

 Cervix Uteri N/A 2001
20160045

Neoadjuvant treatment/Grade--Prostate: How should the grade/differentiation field be coded when hormone therapy is given prior to radiation for metastatic prostate cancer? Is hormone treatment "neoadjuvant treatment" in this situation? Per NCCN guidelines, neoadjuvant hormone therapy is strongly discouraged outside of a clinical trial for localized disease. However for metastatic disease, hormone is recommended (gold standard). See discussion.

8/1/15 CT Exam showed enlarged prostate and left seminal vesicle with multiple enlarged pelvic LNs. Findings: suspicious for prostate cancer with invasion of seminal vesicle. Bone scan findings: positive bone mets in multiple sites. PSA 169.0 (elevated). Patient was started on casodex 8/12/15. A prostate biopsy was performed on 9/16/15 to confirm diagnosis, adenocarcinoma Gleason 4+5. Patient's treatment continued with radiation to bone.

For cases diagnosed prior to 2018

Code the grade/differentiation field from the biopsy for this situation. According to experts consulted, hormone therapy does not alter the grade in this case and grade should be coded based on information after hormone therapy when that is the only grade information available.

 Prostate N/A 2016
20150041

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: Does rule M10 apply in this situation?

L breast biopsy = INVASIVE DUCTAL CARCINOMA

L breast simple mastectomy = 2.0 cm INVASIVE DUCTAL CARCINOMA with an incidental finding of separate 1.0 cm INVASIVE LOBULAR CARCINOMA; pathologist specifically states the tumors are morphologically different. The tumors are both pure Ductal/pure Lobular.

Yes, Breast rule M10 applies. This case is a single primary.

Follow the MP/H rules even though the "pathologist specifically states the tumors are morphologically different" so that situations like this are reported consistenty accross cancer registries, regions, and states for consistent national reporting.

Breast N/A 2015
20240050

Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Vulva: Why is there no M Rule in the Other Sites Multiple Primary Rules related to extramammary Paget disease of the vulva? See Discussion.

The only Other Sites H Rule related to extramammary Paget disease is included in the Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary module. Rule H28 instructs one to code the histology of the underlying tumor when there is extramammary Paget disease and an underlying tumor of the anus, perianal region, or vulva. Therefore, a vulvar extramammary Paget disease with underlying adenocarcinoma is coded as adenocarcinoma (8140/3), and not extramammary Paget disease (8542/3).

However, there is no M Rule confirming extramammary Paget disease and the underlying adenocarcinoma are a single primary (i.e., multiple tumors abstracted as a single primary) making it difficult for one to use the Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary H rules module.

We recognize this is a longstanding histology coding rule, but how are registrars supposed to arrive at Rule H28 when the M Rules must be applied first and do not instruct one to accession a single primary? Moreover, if this is to be a single primary (per rule M2), why is there no H Rule in the Single Tumor module?

In sites other than breast (see Breast Solid Tumor Rules M8/M9), Paget disease with underlying invasive disease is a single primary and the underlying histology is coded. Primary Paget disease of the vulva is uncommon, and we cannot create rules for all possible situations in the Other Sites module. A GYN specific module is in development, and we will look into adding a Paget-related rule. It will differ because Paget in breast is a different situation while Paget in the vulva is always adenocarcinoma.

Paget disease of the vulva is an in-situ adenocarcinoma of vulvar skin with or without an underlying adenocarcinoma (WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th ed.). When there is a statement of “underlying” adenocarcinoma, it is a single primary as with Breast Solid Tumor Rule M8.

 Vulva N/A 2024
20010099 EOD-Extension--Pancreas: How do you code extension when CT scan shows a mass in the head of the pancreas "encompassing" the hepatic branch of the celiac artery? See discussion. We do not code the term "encompasses" as involvement. However, should we code this case as extension to the peripancreatic tissue, NOS or as unknown?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [Extension to peripancreatic tissue, NOS]. There has to be extension to peripancreatic tissue if the mass encompasses the celiac artery.

 Pancreas N/A 2001
20000260 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: When the pathology report does not specify dimensions for the invasive component, how is tumor size coded? See discussion. In some cases the tumor has both invasive and in situ components. The pathologist sometimes does not report the size for the invasive portion of the tumor. In most cases, the invasive portion is described as a percentage of the tumor mass. From January 1, 1998 and forward: Follow the Revised Breast EOD instructions. If the size of the invasive component is not given, record the size of the entire tumor in the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field. Assign the appropriate EOD-Extension code for the situation. Breast N/A 2000
20240044

First Course Treatment/Neoadjuvant Therapy--Esophagus: Should the Neoadjuvant Therapy data item be coded as 1 or 2 when the patient completes all but one cycle of the planned neoadjuvant therapy and the managing physician notes the patient completed the neoadjuvant therapy? See Discussion.

The patient had neoadjuvant chemotherapy (Carboplatin and Paclitaxel) concurrent with radiation per the managing physician. The physician stated the patient completed the neoadjuvant therapy; however, it was also noted that patient completed five cycles of chemotherapy, but the sixth cycle was held due to neutropenia.

The SEER Manual does not address how to code Neoadjuvant Therapy when the patient completed almost all the planned neoadjuvant therapy. It seems inappropriate to code Neoadjuvant Therapy as 2 (Started but not completed) simply because the patient did not have one cycle of chemotherapy but is otherwise felt to have completed neoadjuvant therapy per the managing physician. Does the managing physician’s statement of “completion” impact how this scenario is coded?

Assign code 2, Neoadjuvant therapy started, but not completed OR unknown if completed, for the 2024 SEER Manual data item Neoadjuvant Therapy. Assign code 2 when neoadjuvant therapy was begun and the patient did not complete the full course of neoadjuvant therapy. See Coding Instruction #3 on page 230. The fact that the patient completed five cycles of the planned chemotherapy, but the sixth cycle was held due to neutropenia is important information and should be abstracted correctly and documented via text data items.

 Esophagus N/A 2024
20081129 MP/H Rules--Breast: What histology code should be used with invasive papillary carcinoma with cribriform carcinoma component? There is also DCIS adjacent to the invasive tumor, predominant cribriform and focal papillary patterns. This is a single breast tumor. See Discussion. Registry staff is divided between 8523 and 8255.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

First apply rule H9, code the invasive. To determine the code for the invasive histology, start with rule H10 and stop at rule H15. Code the histology 8503 [papillary]. Papillary (8503) and cribriform (8201) are listed in Table 1 as specific duct types, but in this case they are invasive.

Table 1 and Table 2 will be clarified in the next version of the MP/H rules.

 Breast N/A 2008