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: 09/16/2026 21:46 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20071077 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries/Histology--Colon: How many primaries should be reported and how is the histology field(s) coded if the left colon contains two adenocarcinomas and one mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in a villous adenoma and each has a different level of invasion? See Discussion. A patient had three tumors in the left colon including an 1) invasive well differentiated mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in tubulovillous adenoma with pericolonic subserosal fat invasion 8.5cm, 2) An infiltrative moderately differentiated colonic adenocarcinoma with invasion of muscularis propria 4cm and 3) an invasive moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma with invasion of muscularis propria, 1/69 nodes positive. The case was coded using rule M8 for one primary, but M10 contradicts; and H13 coding rule for histology 8263/3.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Assuming that all tumors are in the left colon, there are three tumors:

  • Mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in a villous adenoma

  • Colonic adenocarcinoma

  • Colonic adenocarcinoma

    • Multiple Primary Determination

    In the colon MP rules go to the multiple tumors module. Start with M3. Stop at M7 and abstract as a single primary.

    Histology Code

    Go to the histology coding rules, multiple tumors module, and start with H15. Stop at H20 which tells you to code the most invasive tumor. Tumor 1 is the most invasive according to the definition of most invasive in the 2007 SEER Manual, page C-271. Code 8263/3 [Adenocarcinoma in tubulovillous adenoma].

    		 Colon N/A 2007
    		20041012 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Colon: What is the number of primaries for a case of familial polyposis with at least three separate tumors having invasive adenocarcinoma, one in the rectum? See Discussion. A patient had a total proctocolectomy and was found to have familial polyposis. At least 3 separate tumors were identified with invasive adenocarcinoma, one of which was in the rectum. Is this 2 primaries: C18.9 with 8220/3 and C20.9 with 8140/3 or is this all one primary cancer?

    For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

    Familial polyposis is always a single primary. Code the primary site for the case example above to C199 [colon and rectum].

    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.

    		 Colon N/A 2004
    		20081120 MP/H Rules--Sarcoma: How many primaries should be abstracted for chondrosarcoma of right toe in 2002, of right lower leg in 2006 and right tibia in 2007? See Discussion. A patient had a myxoid chondrosarcoma of the right toe in 2002. This was amputated and staged as T2 - high grade. Patient had a recurrence in the lower right leg in 2006. At this time he had a below knee amputation. The tumor in 2006 was stated to be similar histologically to the 2002 tumor with pathologic comparison done. Then in 2007 the patient presents with pain in right knee and stump. CT says compatible with recurrent disease, but no copies of path sent. Patient then had an above knee amputation, with diagnosis of clinically recurrent chondrosarcoma of tibia. How many primaries should be abstracted? Is 2007 diagnosis a new primary?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    Abstract two primaries in this case, 2002 and 2007.

    The first primary was diagnosed in 2002. The 2006 diagnosis would not be a new primary according to the rules in effect at that time (2004 SEER manual, page 11, rule 5, exception 1).

    Use the current MP/H rules to compare the 2007 diagnosis to the 2002 diagnosis. Start with rule M3 and stop at rule M10. The 2007 diagnosis is a separate primary.

    		 Sarcoma N/A 2008
    		20041006 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Date of Diagnosis--Bladder: How is date of diagnosis coded when metastases consistent with a bladder primary are found more than a year after a diagnosis of non-invasive bladder cancer? See Description. A non-invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma is removed by TURB in May 2002. In January 2003, a bone biopsy reveals metastatic transitional cell carcinoma consistent with bladder primary.

    For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

    Code a second bladder primary diagnosed in January 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.

    		 Bladder Date of diagnosis 2004
    		20031182 Date of Diagnosis/Diagnostic Confirmation: How are these fields coded when a physician statement of diagnosis predates a positive biopsy? See Description. A mass seen on EGD with negative biopsy 12/28/01. Needle core biopsies 1/14/02 were diagnostic of GIST. Gleevec treatment was initiated 2/02, and in discharge summary 5/27/02, the physician says the GIST was diagnosed on EGD. Code the date of diagnosis as 01/2002. Code the diagnostic confirmation as positive histology. EGD revealed a "mass." Biopsies of the "mass" seen on EGD were negative before January 2002. N/A Date of diagnosis, Diagnostic confirmation 2003
    		20031067 Primary Site/Histology (Pre-2007)/Sarcoma: How do you code these fields for a vulvar tumor diagnosed by FISH analysis as "extra-osseous Ewing sarcoma?" See Description. A literature search relates soft tissue malignancy described as "extra-osseous Ewing sarcoma/PNET." Neither are compatible with site.

    For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

    Code histology as 9260/3 [Ewing sarcoma]. ICD-O-3 does not have a code for extra-osseous Ewing sarcoma (EOE). Ignore the topography code listed in ICD-O and use the code for the primary site (vulva).

    Site codes associated with morphology codes in the ICD-O are the most common sites and are not intended to limit coding only to those sites.

    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.

    		 Sarcoma Histology, Primary site 2003
    		20110042 MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: How is histology coded when the initial biopsies of retroperitoneal mass demonstrated non-seminomatous germ cell tumor, but after neoadjuvant chemotherapy the final diagnosis on the radical orchiectomy specimen demonstrated mature teratoma, NOS (not stated to be malignant)? See Discussion. A large retroperitoneal mass was found on CT scan. A biopsy demonstrated non-seminomatous germ cell tumor. The biopsy was done at an outside facility. Neither the CT scan nor biopsy pathology report is available for review. Following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the retroperitoneal mass decreased to 12 cm. Subsequently, the patient had a right radical orchiectomy. The final diagnosis per the pathology reports was a 3.5 cm mature teratoma (NOS, not stated to be "malignant") of right testicle. The patient then had resection of the retroperitoneal mass and biopsies. Pathology showed the "excision" specimen contained 6 benign lymph nodes and two of the "biopsy" specimens showed non-seminomatous germ cell neoplasm with IHC findings suggestive of a mix of embryonal carcinoma and a lesser component of yolk sac tumor.

    This is a reportable case. Even though the pathology from the orchiectomy stated mature teratoma, NOS, the presence of lymph node metastases proves that this tumor is malignant. Code the histology as 9065/3 [germ cell tumor non-seminomatous].

    The majority of germ cell tumors show the presence of multiple histologies. While the original tumor showed only mature teratoma, there were obviously yolk sac cells that were not detected on the sections taken from the primary tumor. Both teratoma and yolk sac are germ cell tumors. This explains why the pathologist gave you the diagnosis of germ cell tumor. The classification of "non-seminomatous" simply means that there was no seminomas present in the mixture of germ cell histologies.

    		N/A Histology 2011
    		20031205 EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined: How are these fields coded when an autopsy report reveals pathologically involved regional lymph nodes but does not state how many nodes were positive nor how many were examined? See Description. A final autopsy report described widely disseminated adenocarcinoma, probably lung primary. Metastatic tumor in brain, lungs, and in lymph nodes. The Gross description of the autopsy report stated that there were numerous metastases to hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes. The Micro description of the autopsy report did not add any clarification. In the absence of a stated number of lymph nodes, the options for coding number of regional lymph nodes examined are codes 96-98. These codes include descriptions of surgical procedures such as sampling and dissection. How do we code number of regional lymph nodes examined when the pathological examination of lymph nodes was done only at autopsy and not during a surgical procedure?

    For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The rules that apply to the use of pathology reports for EOD coding also apply to autopsy reports.

    When a cancer diagnosis is made and positive lymph nodes are discovered on autopsy, in the absence of a stated number of lymph nodes, code the number of lymph nodes positive to 97 [Positive nodes but number of positive nodes not specified]. Code the number of lymph nodes examined to 97 [Regional lymph node removal documented as dissection and number of lymph nodes unknown/not stated]. An autopsy is a dissection.

    		 N/A N/A 2003
    		20021149 EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: In the absence of a clear surgical or pathologic description of how the salivary gland involvement relates to the head and neck primary, do we code the involvement as direct extension, further extension or metastasis? See discussion. A composite resection of tonsillar mass and a modified radical neck dissection is performed. According to the pathology report: Squamous cell carcinoma involvement of tonsil with invasion of skeletal muscle. A separate specimen labeled "tumor" indicates a salivary gland is also involved with tumor. Neck dissection: 1 lymph node with metastasis.

    For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

    In the absence of a clear statement that the gland was involved by direct extension, code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [Metastasis]. In this case, the salivary gland tumor was described as a "separate specimen" that contained the salivary gland. The extension does not appear to be contiguous for this case.

    If the salivary gland involvement had been by direct extension, which would be assumed if there had been contiguous involvement of the gland with the primary site, then code the EOD-Extension field to 80 [Further extension]. If there had been direct extension, the surgeon probably would not have dissected through the tumor. The resection specimens would have been contiguous.

    		 Head & Neck N/A 2002
    		20031051 Histology (Pre-2007)/Sarcoma: What code is used to represent the histology "Ewing's Sarcoma/Primitive Neuroectodermal Tumor (PNET)"? See Description. A comment on one path report states "some authors consider both Ewing's & PNET to be the same biologic entity given that they share the same translocation between chromosomes 11 & 22." The pathologists at our children's hospital agree with this statement and contend that the two should have the same histologic code.

    For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

    Code histology as 9260/3, Ewing sarcoma. Ewing sarcoma is a specific histology on the continuum of primitive neuroectodermal tumors. Code Ewing sarcoma as it is more specific than PNET, 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.

    		 Sarcoma Histology 2003