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: 02/20/2026 20:38 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20010022 Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: Some pathologists use a two component grade system for bladder carcinomas - either low grade or high grade. Should we continue to code these per SEER rules as grades 2 [low grade] and 4 [high grade]? See discussion. The AFIP website states that this low grade classification corresponds to grade 1/3, while the high grade corresponds to both grade 2/3 and grade 3/3. Using the 3-grade conversion, this would also classify the low grade as grade 2, but would leave the high grade as a toss-up between grade 3 and grade 4. Continue to code Grade, Differentiation as specified in the SEER Program Code Manual: "Low grade" is coded to 2 and "high grade" is coded to 4. 2001
20120091 Reportability/Behavior--Kidney: Is epithelioid angiomyolipoma (AML) of the kidney a reportable malignancy? See Discussion. The addendum final diagnosis on a pathology report for a kidney core needle biopsy included the results of additional stains performed on the tissue. It indicated the morphology was most consistent with epithelioid angiomyolipoma. Further comments in the body of the report indicate these tumors are now considered malignant neoplasms with the capacity to be locally aggressive and they can potentially metastasize. There is no mention of a metastasis in this particular case.

Epithelioid angiomyolipoma (AML) [8860/0] of the kidney is not reportable unless stated to be malignant.

If the pathologist confirms this is a malignancy, apply ICD-O-3 Rule F (Matrix principle) and assign the behavior code /3. If confirmation is received, accession the case using the morphology code 8860/3 [malignant angiomyolipoma].

2012
20130021 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: When will the follicular lymphoma, grade 1 code [9695/3] ever be used? See Discussion. The Abstractor Notes currently do not explain the histologic classification of follicular lymphoma [FL]. Frequently, FL grade 1 and 2 are not being separated and are described as "low grade" or "grade 1-2" in the pathology final diagnosis. The correct histology code would be 9691/3 [FL, grade 2] for these cases. Apparently, per the 2008 WHO Classification, grade 1 and grade 2 are being grouped together as grade 1-2 due to the minimal difference in patient outcome. If these histologies are grouped together, will histology code 9695/3 [FL, grade 1] ever be used? Should the Heme Database explain the classifications of follicular lymphoma grade 1, 2, and 3?

When the latest WHO classification for heme neoplasms was written in 2008, there was a lot of controversy about whether or not the FL grading system was useful or not. A number of papers have been written stating that grades 1 and 2 do not have a statistically different survival or transformation rate. Given that the controversy had not been settled by those in the clinical world, the WHO recommended analyzing grades 1 and 2 together. They did not, however, remove either grade 1 or 2 from their classification. When the WHO intend to change their classification (have both grades classified under one histology number), they omit one code from their book (make it obsolete) and change the definition for the other code. The 2008 WHO book did not make either ICD-O-3 code obsolete. Therefore, we continue to collect the cases as designated by the pathologist. If the controversy is settled before the next WHO classification, you may see changes in the codes.

Additionally, since the 2008 WHO book was written, there have been some clinical papers challenging the designation of grade 3. They contend that grade 3 can be mistaken for low-grade.

The grades for follicular lymphoma are based on the number of centroblasts per high powered field (HPF). The number of centroblasts for grade 1 is 0-5; for grade 2 is 6-15, for grade 3a and 3b is >15 centroblasts. 3a has centrocytes and 3b has no centrocytes.

2013
20021021 Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Should we add the missing terms listed in the Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases to ICD-O-3 because these absent synonyms would not be identified during hematology casefinding? See discussion. The Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases gives a preferred term for each code followed by a list of synonyms, not all of which are listed in the ICD-O-3. Two examples are: 1) 9962/3 [Essential Thrombocythemia] has 6 synonymous terms listed, but the last three of them are not in ICD-O-3. 2) 9930/3 [Myeloid Sarcoma] has the synonym "extramedullary myeloid tumor" which is not in ICD-O-3.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Do not add these synonyms to ICD-O-3. The Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases lists synonyms for the preferred terms to assist in the classification of these other terms. In the absence of a specific code for the synonym, code to the preferred term. For casefinding, these terms would be grouped in a broader category of hematologic diseases under an ICD-9-CM or ICD-10 code and, therefore, will be identified during casefinding procedures using the disease index.

For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.

 2002
20091095 CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: Please clarify how SEER registries should use code 040 for Site-Specific Factor 3 on prostate cases. See Discussion. The 6/11/09 NAACCR Webinar on prostate cancer pointed out that SSF 3 code 040 refers the registrar to Note 4, which states "when the apical, distal urethral, bladder base, or bladder neck margins are involved and there is no extracapsular extension, use code 040." The webinar went on to say that code 040 ONLY applies to these specific margins, and that if other margins are involved (for example, the 'right lateral margin'), we should not use code 040. Is this consistent with SEER's interpretation of Note 4? Are we to ignore involvement of margins other than those specified in Note 4, and consequently code SSF 3 within the 000-032 range? Would this also apply to code 048 (extracapsular extension and margins involved)?

Yes, SEER agrees. Code SSF3, code 040 per page C-740 of 2007 SEER manual exactly as stated in Note 4. According to the Inquiry and Response System of the CoC, Note 4 lists specific margins that were once thought to have a prognostic impact. Code 040 in SSF3 should be used only when those margins are involved.

Note 4 pertains to code 040, not to code 048.

2009
20061046 First Course Treatment--Hematopoietic, NOS: How are Decadron and Zometa coded when used in the treatment of multiple myeloma? See Discussion. The 2004 SEER Program Manual instructions for coding hormone therapy do not provide any specific instructions for coding adrenocorticotrophic agents. Per Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases pg. 3, prednisone and decadron are coded as hormonal therapy (when given as part of a chemotherapy regimen). Does this mean that Decadron without chemo agents is not coded as treatment? In paging through the hematopoietic disease manual, one sees this instruction for other sites as well. Yet, for other diseases (e.g., Waldenstroms macroglobulinemia on page 18), prednisone is coded as hormone therapy (not necessarily as part of chemo regimen).

Code the decadron as hormonal treatment. Do not code the zometa--it is an ancillary agent.

In the August 2006 update of SEER*Rx, a note was added to decadron and other hormonal agents that they can be used to control white cell proliferation in lymphoma and multiple myeloma.

In general, decadron is used more commonly for supportive care and as an antiemetic than as hormone therapy.

 2006
20021077 Histology (Pre-2007)/Primary Site/EOD-Extension--All Sites: How do you code these fields for a resected thyroid that is negative for any diagnostic abnormality and a left ovary that demonstrates "papillary thyroid carcinoma arising in a cystic teratoma"? See discussion. Teratomas occurring in the ovaries frequently contain various types of fully differentiated tissue that normally occur in other body parts. Should the primary be coded to the ovary or to the organ in which that type of tissue normally occurs?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Primary Site field to the organ in which the cancer arose. For this tumor, code the Primary Site field to C56.9 [ovary] and Histology to 8260/3 [papillary carcinoma of thyroid]. Use the ovary EOD for tumors diagnosed 1998-2003.

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.

 2002
20031145 EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: Is this field coded 10 [Invasive tumor confined to one of the following subsites: interior wall, one lateral wall, posterior wall] or 30 [Localized, NOS] for tonsillar primary when there is no mention of involvement of surrounding structures? See Description. Site is stated to be "left tonsil" and was coded to site C099. "The lesion is admixed in tonsillar tissue." No surrounding structures are stated to be involved. Is it logical to assume that since code C099 includes the palantine tonsils and the palatine tonsils are on the lateral wall and since no other areas are stated to be involved that extension code 10 [confined to one lateral wall] would be more appropriate than code 30 [localized NOS]? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD-extension for the case example to 10 [Invasive tumor confined to one of the following subsites: anterior wall, one lateral wall, posterior wall]. The tonsil lies in a pocket on the wall (tonsillar fossa), so you know it is confined to the wall. 2003
20140002 Reportability--Appendix: Is a pathologic final diagnosis of an appendix with "well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (carcinoid)" reportable? See discussion. SINQ 20130027 states that "well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" of the appendix is reportable (8240/3) while "carcinoid" tumors of the appendix are not reportable (8240/1). Please explain the difference between "well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" of the appendix and a "carcinoid" of the appendix.

Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor of the appendix is reportable. The difference is terminology. "Carcinoid" is listed in ICD-O-3 as a /1 for appendix making it non-reportable.

When both terms are used, ask for clarification from the pathologist. Failing that, accept the reportable terminology and report the case.

 2014
20140014 First course treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Anus: Would infrared coagulation be coded as treatment for AIN III of the anus/anal canal? See discussion. SINQ 20051064 indicates infrared coagulation is not treatment for cancer. Internet search explains that infrared coagulation delivers heat to destroy the tissue so it can be removed. In our region it is currently used to treat internal and external anal low grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) and high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL). While it is understandable that this wouldn't be coded as treatment for an invasive anal primary, could it be treatment for an in situ tumor? If it is treatment, should it be coded under Surgery code 15 The answer to SINQ 20050164 still applies. Do not code infrared coagulation as cancer treatment. It is used to coagulate blood vessels and not to destroy cancer tissue. 2014