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: 10/07/2026 18:39 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20071028 MP/H Rules--Lung: Why the term "nodule" is not included as an equivalent term along with tumor, mass, lesion and neoplasm in the 2007 lung multiple primary rules?

Answer revised July 2008

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

For the purpose of applying the Lung MP/H rules, the word "Nodule" can be used interchageably with "Tumor," "Mass," "Lesion" and "Neoplasm." HOWEVER, this does NOT apply to casefinding or staging.

This revision will be added to the next version of the MP/H rules. Sinq question 20071028 will be revised.

 Lung N/A 2007
20140001 Grade--Brain and CNS: How should grade be coded for a pineal parenchymal tumor of "intermediate differentiation"? See discussion.

Per a web search, the term "pineal parenchymal tumor of intermediate differentiation" refers to a pineal tumor with the histology/behavior that falls somewhere between the category of pineocytoma (9361/1) and pineoblastoma (9362/3). In other words, it is a malignant tumor that is a WHO grade II/III neoplasm because it's histologic features and behavior are not quite equivalent to a pineoblastoma (WHO grade IV). Thus, it appears the expression "intermediate differentiation" is actually referring to a type of WHO classification system rather than the grade field.

Should the type of documentation provided in pathology report be used to imply the grade field is being referenced and thus be coded to 2 for "intermediate differentiation" or should grade be coded to 9 based on the information found during the web search?

Code the grade as 2 based on instruction #8 in the revised grade instructions for 2014.

Do not use WHO grade to code the grade field for CNS tumors.

 Brain and CNS N/A 2014
20071107

MP/H Rules/Recurrence--Breast: If the pathologist and oncologist call a 2007 lobular carcinoma that appears in a skin nodule of a mastectomy scar a recurrence of a patient's 1975 primary breast duct carcinoma, should we abstract this as a new primary? See Discussion.

According to the pathologist and oncologist, the change in histology is attributed to the present availability of E-cadherin, which was not available in 1975.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract the 2007 diagnosis as a separate primary using rule M5.

Rule M5 applies to this case because it comes before rule M12. Furthermore, based on your statement, the answer presumes that the original tumor was duct carcinoma only, there was no lobular carcinoma present. This must be a new primary because there are two different histologies.

The 2007 MP/H rules were developed with input from clinicians. They advised that a subsequent breast tumor more than five years later is a new primary. It is important to apply the rules so that these cases are handled in a consistant manner across all registries.

 Breast N/A 2007
20031195 EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: Is this field coded to 15 [Tumor identified by needle biopsy for elevated PSA] when it is unknown whether or not a TRUS was done? See Description. Patient was admitted for radiation therapy for prostate cancer. H&P states that patient had elevated PSA. PE showed benign feeling prostate. Stage is clinical T1c. There is no mention of whether or not TRUS had been done. For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: EOD extension code 15 is correct for this case example. When there is no other documentation available, the AJCC stage may be used to determine extension. Prostate N/A 2003
20110051 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted when bilateral breasts are involved with MALT lymphoma and the bone marrow is negative?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Per Rule M2, this is a single primary because there is a single histology mentioned. The histology is coded to 9699/3 [MALT lymphoma]. Code the primary site to C509 [breast] per Rule PH24 which states to code the primary site to the organ when lymphoma is present only in an organ.

Unless your software has edits that prevent coding laterality for lymphomas, code the laterality as bilateral. Up to half of extranodal, extragastric MALT lymphomas occur in multiple sites, particularly in paired sites (breast is an example).

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms N/A 2011
20031194

Terms of involvement--Lung: Is "intense uptake" described on a PET scan an indication of involvement? See Description.

We are seeing increasing use of PET scans as diagnostic tools for cancer. PET scans use different terminology than the ambiguous terms listed in the EOD manual. Could we please have guidelines for interpreting PET scans?

Example: Patient with right lung cancer. PET scan showed intense uptake in the mediastinum and in the hilum. Can we code "intense uptake" as involvement of mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes?

 Do not interpret "intense uptake" as involvement. Look for a statement of involvement or other terminology, such as "highly suspicious," "strongly suspicious for" malignancy, involvement, etc. Lung N/A 2003
20110018

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted for a case with a history of follicular lymphoma, grade 2 and a subsequent splenectomy diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma? See Discussion.

The patient was treated over a period of time for follicular lymphoma, grade 2. The oncologist thought the spleen was congested and removed it. The diagnosis was DLBCL.

Updated May 2026

This case is accessioned as two primaries per Rule M10 which states to abstract multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm and there is a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm after the initial clinical workup of the chronic disease is completed. The first primary is follicular lymphoma, grade 2 [9691/3] and it is a chronic neoplasm. The second primary is diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) [9680/3] and it is an acute neoplasm

 Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms N/A 2011
20110141

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should a 2010 diagnosis of central nervous system diffuse large B-cell lymphoma be abstracted as a new primary when the patient has a history of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma in the 1980's and a 1991 history of DLBCL of the bowel (NOS)? See Discussion.

Patient presents in 2010 with the history of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma and DLBCL. The patient is stated to have been in remission from the DLBCL. However, a current CT scan of the brain is consistent with central nervous system DLBCL. Cerebrospinal fluid cytology is consistent with DLBCL. The CT scan of the torso showed no lymphadenopathy or suspicious findings.

Does the recently discovered DLBCL disease process in the central nervous system represent a new third primary? Or is this disease recurrence/progression? The patient was referred to a cancer center and there is no additional information available regarding further workup or treatment.

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

The patient only has two primaries: cutaneous T-cell lymphoma diagnosed in the 1980s and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma of the bowel diagnosed in 1991.

The DLBCL of the brain does not represent a new primary. It is progression of the 1991 disease process with the same histology. Under the Alternate Names section in the Heme DB, one synonym for DLBCL is "Primary DLBCL of the CNS." The histology code for both the 1991 bowel neoplasm and the current CNS neoplasm is 9680/3. Per Rule M2, a single histology is a single primary.

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

 Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms N/A 2011
20000843 Place of Birth: When there is conflicting information, which record takes precedence in coding this field, the medical record or the death certificate? If there is a discrepancy, use the information from the medical record to code the Place of Birth field. The information from the medical record is provided by the patient, the information on the death certificate is provided by others. If the medical record does not contain birth information, use the information from the death certificate. N/A N/A 2000
20100014 Reportability: Are there criteria other than a pathologist or clinician's statement that a registrar can use to determine reportability of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST)? See Discussion.

Per SINQ 20091021 and 20021151, GIST cases are not reportable unless they are stated to be malignant. A pathologist or clinician must confirm the diagnosis of cancer. There are cases that are not stated to be malignant in the pathology report or confirmed as such by a clinician; however, these cases do have information that for other primary sites would typically be taken into consideration when determining reportability. The final diagnosis on the pathology report for all 16 cases is "GIST." The additional comment(s) for each of the 16 different cases is reported below. Are any of the following cases reportable?

1) Pathology report indicates that the bulk of the tumor is submucosal. It extends through the muscularis propria and abuts the serosa.

2) Pathology report states tumor extends to serosal surface of transverse colon, but not into muscularis propria. CD 117 and CD 34 are positive.

3) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades through the gastric wall to the serosal surface.

4) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades pericolic fat tissue.

5) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate omental caking.

6) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate hepatic metastases. Hepatic metastases are not biopsied.

7) Tumor stated to be unresectable and extends into pancreas. Chemotherapy given.

8) Pathology report states tumor is low to intermediate grade and involves serosal (visceral peritoneum).

9) Tumor size is 17.5 cm. Pathology report states "malignant risk".

10) Pathology report states tumor "into muscularis propria" or tumor "involves muscularis propria" or "infiltrates into muscularis propria".

11) Pathology report states, "high malignant potential; omentum inv by tumor." It is not stated in path report or final diagnosis to be malignant GIST.

12) Pathology report states that tumor arises from wall of small bowel and extends into thin serosal surface.

13) Pathology report states minimal invasion of lamina propria; does not penetrate muscularis propria.

14) Pathology report states, "high mitotic activity >10/50 HPF; high risk for aggressive behavior; moderate malignant potential."

15) Pathology report states tumor size is >5 cm. Intermediate risk for aggressive behavior; CD117+ KIT exon 11+.

16) Pathology report states "high risk of malignancy."

 For GIST to be reportable, the final diagnosis on the pathology report must definitively state that the GIST is malignant, or invasive, or in situ. Case 6 is the only exception. It would be reportable assuming the scan actually states "hepatic metastases." Based only on the information provided, none of the other examples are reportable. The type of extension and/or invasion mentioned in the other examples are not sufficient to confirm malignancy. Borderline neoplasms can extend and invade, but do not metastasize. Only malignant neoplasms metastasize. N/A N/A 2010