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: 03/13/2026 17:43 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20150040

Surgery of Primary Site--Pleura: How is this field coded if the patient underwent an exploratory thoracotomy with partial decortication that excised some, but not all, of the pleural mesothelioma tumors? See Discussion.

This patient underwent a "partial decortication" per the operative report. While the operative report does not specifically note that this was performed with a partial pleurectomy, it appears the patient had a partial pleurectomy because the largest specimen removed was a "pleural peel" specimen, which included the parietal and visceral pleural surfaces with a small amount of underlying lung tissue. The operative report notes the patient had involvement of both the lung and chest wall. A total resection was not possible due to the extent of the tumor. However, this patient does appear to have undergone at least a partial resection of the pleura/tumor burden. The patient did not simply undergo a pleurodesis to free adhesions. Per the NCI's PDQ, pleurectomy and decortication are performed together. Because the operative report and pathology report only called this procedure a "partial decortication" without specifically mentioning a pleurectomy, would this be coded as a tumor excision (surgery code 20)? Or should we assume the procedure is best coded as a partial pleurectomy and decortication and use code 30 (simple/partial resection)?

Read the operative report and the pathology report and assign the surgery code that best represents the extent of the surgery. In this case, code 30 seems most appropriate. Do not assign the surgery code based only on the name of the procedure; use all information available to chose the most representative code.

2015
20130115 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology coded when the biopsy final diagnosis is "low grade B-cell lymphoma of unclear subtype (splenic marginal zone lymphoma?)" and the hematologist clinically diagnoses this as splenic marginal zone lymphoma? See Discussion.

This patient has massive splenomegaly. The biopsy final diagnosis was "low grade B lymphoma of unclear subtype (splenic marginal zone lymphoma?)." The pathologist's comment states, "Because of the clinical context (lymphocytosis and splenomegaly) a splenic marginal zone lymphoma is a possibility." There are no other histologic diagnoses. All the flow cytometry reports are as unclear as the biopsy.

The hematologist, after seeing the pathology report, states, "The bone marrow biopsy shows a significant infiltration by mature lymphocytes; their markers strongly suggest a marginal zone lymphoma, probably of splenic origin The final diagnosis is a splenic marginal zone lymphoma."

Should the clinical diagnosis of splenic marginal zone lymphoma [9689/3] be coded when a clinical diagnosis is not listed as a definitive diagnostic method for this neoplasm? Or should the histology be coded as low grade B-cell lymphoma [9591/3]? The clinicians will expect the case to be coded as a splenic marginal zone lymphoma when there's no doubt about the diagnosis.

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

Code the histology to 9689/3 [splenic marginal zone lymphoma] per Rule PH29 and Case Reportability Instruction #6 in the Heme Manual. Case Reportability Instruction #6 indicates, "Report the case when there is a (physician's statement) of reportable hematopoietic or lymphoid neoplasm."

The pathology gave an NOS diagnosis, low grade B-cell lymphoma [9591/3]. The physician clinically stated this was a splenic marginal zone lymphoma [9689/3]. Rule PH 29 states to code the specific histology when the diagnosis is one non-specific histology AND one specific histology AND the Heme DB MP Calculator indicates they are the same primary. Per the Multiple Primaries Calculator, these two histologies indicate the same 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.

2013
20230062

Update to current manual/EOD 2018/EOD Primary Tumor--Appendix: Is it correct to code Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor as code 500 (Invasion of/through serosa (mesothelium) (visceral peritoneum)) and EOD Mets as code 30 (Intraperitoneal metastasis (peritoneal carcinomatosis) WITH or WITHOUT peritoneal mucinous deposits containing tumor cells), when the resection pathology report for a low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) proves “Tumor Extent: Acellular mucin invades visceral peritoneum (serosa)” as well as metastatic LAMN within the right lower quadrant peritoneum? See Discussion.

This patient had serosal involvement and the pathologist and managing physician staged this as pT4a disease. This extension seems best captured by EOD Primary Tumor code 500. Additionally, the patient had discontinuous metastatic involvement of the peritoneum, and this was staged by the pathologist and managing physician as pM1b (Intraperitoneal metastasis only, including peritoneal mucinous deposits containing tumor cells). Although this peritoneal involvement was present in the right lower quadrant, it was staged as distant metastatic disease and not as part of the primary tumor category. However, currently EOD Primary Tumor code 600 would seem to apply since the peritoneal tumor was in the right lower quadrant. Code 600 is defined as mucinous tumors with peritoneal involvement confined within right lower quadrant. This EOD Primary Tumor code and the physician’s M category assignment do not align; the physician has staged this as distant metastasis (M category, not the T category). Should the peritoneal metastasis (even limited to the right lower quadrant) be included in the EOD Mets field and not in the EOD Primary Tumor field? In other words, should the peritoneal involvement included in EOD Primary Tumor code 600 be reclassified in EOD Mets code 30 (Intraperitoneal metastasis (peritoneal carcinomatosis) WITH or WITHOUT peritoneal mucinous deposits containing tumor cells)?

Assign code 500 for EOD Primary Tumor and code 30 for EOD Mets. This will correctly derive the T4aM1b stage based on AJCC 8th edition.

Abstraction of peritoneal metastasis changed from the T category in the AJCC 7th edition to the M category in the 8th and 9th AJCC editions. As a result, for cases diagnosed in 2018 and later, peritoneal deposits in the right lower quadrant should be abstracted as EOD Primary Tumor code 500 and EOD Mets code 30. However, the EOD Primary Tumor code of 600 has not yet been updated to align with the 8th and 9th AJCC editions. The 2025 updates will correct for this via a conversion for cases diagnosed in 2018 and forward where EOD Primary Tumor = 600 and EOD Mets = 00 or 10 to EOD Primary Tumor = 500 and EOD Mets = 30. Effective immediately, abstract peritoneal deposits in the right lower quadrant as EOD Primary Tumor code 500 and EOD Mets code 30, even though you will still have the ability to assign EOD Primary Tumor code 600 in your abstraction software until the 2025 updates are deployed.

 2023
20120002

Histology/Diagnostic confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are histology and diagnostic confirmation coded when a patient has a clinical diagnosis of lymphoma but a pathologic diagnosis of malignant neoplasm, NOS? See Discussion.

This patient had CT scans showing extensive bilateral retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy suspicious for lymphoma and left axillary lymphadenopathy. Thin core biopsies were done of the left axillary lymph nodes and immunohistology pathology was read as malignant neoplasm with extensive necrosis. Flow cytometry analysis of the sample shows no definitive or sufficient CD45+ events for informative analysis. Karyotype analysis could not be performed on this specimen due to inadequate sample. FISH analysis using IGH break apart probe showed no evidence of clonal rearrangement in limited number of cells available for analysis. The physician's diagnosis is probable lymphoma, no further workup felt necessary because patient would not tolerate chemotherapy anyway and hospice was felt most appropriate care for patient.

The definitive diagnostic method for lymphoma, NOS is histologic confirmation, but the only histologic confirmation was of "malignant neoplasm with extensive necrosis." Should the histology and diagnostic confirmation be coded as lymphoma, NOS [9590/3] and imaging without microscopic confirmation [7] or malignancy, NOS [8000/3] and positive histology [1]?

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

Code the histology to 9590/3 [malignant lymphoma, NOS] and the diagnostic confirmation to 7 [radiology and other imaging techniques without microscopic confirmation]. Per the Diagnostic Confirmation Coding Instructions for Heme and Lymphatic Neoplasms, use code 1 when ONLY the biopsy was used to diagnose the specific histology. The biopsy only confirmed a malignancy; the scan confirmed the specific diagnosis of lymphoma.

Note that a clinical diagnosis can be a definitive diagnostic method for malignant lymphoma, NOS. In this case, the biopsy was inadequate and a more specific diagnosis could not be made by histology. Because no further work-up was pursued, this NOS diagnosis of malignant lymphoma was a clinical diagnosis only.

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.

2012
20100081 Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should a single primary be accessioned with the histology coded 9732/3 [multiple myeloma] when a patient is diagnosed initially with a plasmacytoma on an excision and a single bone marrow biopsy showed only 4% plasma cells, then the subsequent workup led to a clinical diagnosis of multiple myeloma? See Discussion.

This patient had a plasmacytoma removed from the sphenoid sinus and was started on Dexamethasone. The patient had a bone marrow biopsy with 4% plasma cells. A statement in the hematology notes read, "it can increase the rate of false negative results with a bone marrow biopsy." The bone marrow biopsy was done 15 days after the surgery for the plasmacytoma.

Workup yielded the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Per a statement in hematology notes, "I found her having 4% blasts, atypical plasma cells in the bone marrow biopsy and also lytic lesions involving the T7 and lucencies involving L4 and L5 vertebral bodies and also the upper sacrum. The PET-CT scan did not show significant metabolic activities in those lesions. The patient had a small amount of Bence-Jones in the urine and also an abnormal kappa to lambda ratio in the serum. The ratio was 12 to 1. The beta 2 microglobulin was 1.4. The albumin in the serum was 3.4. Based on that, the patient has been diagnosed with Durie-Salmon stage III in ISS stage II multiple myeloma."

The abstractor notes for multiple myeloma state that the diagnosis is made when the proportion of plasma cells in the bone marrow is 10% or greater. Should a diagnosis of MM be accessioned and coded when the bone marrow is less than 10% plasma cells, but a clinical diagnosis of MM is made?

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

Accept the physician's diagnosis of multiple myeloma [9732/3]. Code the multiple myeloma as a single primary using rule M8 if there was only ONE positive biopsy. Code as multiple primaries (both the solitary plasmacytoma and multiple myeloma) using Rule M11 if there are TWO positive biopsies, one confirming the chronic neoplasm and the other confirming the acute neoplasm.

Per the Heme DB Abstractor Notes: The registrar DOES NOT CODE plasma cell myeloma based on the percentage of plasma cells. There must be a diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma. In addition, a clinical diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma may be made based on amyloidosis with associated renal impairment, anemia and/or hypercalcemia supported by radiologic evidence of multiple lytic bone lesions. he biopsy confirmed plasma cell malignancy (plasmacytoma) and the clinical workup confirmed myeloma.

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.

2010
20230065

Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Prostate: Is histology coded as 8045 (Combined small cell carcinoma) for a 2023 diagnosis of two-component carcinoma comprised of both acinar adenocarcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the prostate? See Discussion.

This patient does not have a previous diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma nor a previous history of androgen-deprivation therapy.

Does the logic in the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules (STRs) noted in SINQ 20200052 still apply? This SINQ confirms a diagnosis of mixed prostatic adenocarcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma is 8045. This matches the STRs instructions for Rule H21 and Table 2 (Mixed and Combination Codes), row 1. Row 1 indicates a mixed small cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma is combined small cell carcinoma (8045). For a patient without previous treatment, is this the correct mixed histology code?

Code histology as combined small cell carcinoma (8045) based on the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, May 2023 Update, Table 2, Mixed and Combination Codes, for this mixed histology prostate carcinoma consisting of adenocarcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma regardless of treatment status. This is similar to SINQ 20200052 that applies to one tumor with mixed histologies.

 2023
20200047

Stage-related Data Item/Lymphovascular Invasion--Ovary: The 2018 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual states that LVI is coded 8 (Not applicable) for Ovary (Schema 00551). What is the reason for having lymphovascular invasion (LVI) coded "8" for Ovary? See Discussion.

This direction is also in SEER*RSA for Ovary. Researching a possible explanation for this, we found that LVI is an independent predictor of progression and survival in patients with primary epithelial ovarian cancer at early stage but not at advanced stage. However, studies also recommend that routine evaluation of LVI in ovarian cancer is highly recommended in daily practice.

The coding instructions were developed and implemented in concert with the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 7th edition, and updated with the 8th edition as per the 2018 STORE Manual and were based on sites where distinguishing between lymphatic/small vessel invasion and venous/large vessel invasion was not medically appropriate.

SEER required LVI for penis and testis cases only beginning in 2016; sites other than penis or testis are coded 8 unless required by state or central registries. The list for use of code 8 has been changed for 2021 and will no longer include Ovary.

 2020
20160031

MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: What is the code for Rosette-forming glioneural tumor from a pathology report of a brain tumor biopsy for a date of diagnosis in 2015? See Discussion.

This diagnosis is not listed in the ICD-O-3 though it is listed as code 9509/1 for this specific tumor in the 2007 WHO classification of Tumours of Central Nervous System. (See link:  http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00401-007-0243-4/fulltext.html.)

Assign 9505/1 for Rosette-forming glioneuronal tumor. The new code, 9509/1, has not been implemented in the United States. 9505/1 is to be used until the new code is implemented. See page 7 of the NAACCR Guidelines for ICD-O-D Implementation, effective January 1, 2014, http://www.naaccr.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=u7d3sB71t5w%3d&tabid=126&mid=466.

2016
20180096

Reportability/Histology--Small intestine: Is a neuroendocrine microtumor of the duodenum a reportable tumor? See Discussion.

This comment was added to the pathology report by the pathologist: A focus of neuroendocrine microtumor measured 350 micrometers, qualifying as a neuroendocrine microtumor. Focus was immunohistochemically positive for chromogranin and synaptophysin and negative for gastrin. The Ki-67/CD45 immunostain showed <1% positivity in microtumor.

Neuroendocrine microtumor of the duodenum is reportable as 8240/3. "Microtumor" pertains to the size/amount of NET and not to a histologic type.

 2018
20110129

MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How many primaries are accessioned if a pathology report for a right upper lobectomy with a chest wall resection describes the disease as 1) two foci of poorly differentiated non-small cell carcinoma, 2) mixed adenocarcinoma and non-mucinous bronchioalveolar carcinoma, each present as a separate focus? See Discussion.

This case was abstracted as two primaries, adenocarcinoma, acinar and papillary types [8255/3] and non-mucinous bronchioloalveolar carcinoma [8252/3] per Rules M5 and M10. If this is reported as only two primaries, what is the stage for each tumor? The non-small cell tumors were the most invasive, but they were not a separate primary per Rule M10.

Final pathology diagnosis for a RUL lobectomy and chest wall resection: Carcinoma of the lung with the following features:

1. Non-small cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated (see comment). Two foci in same lobe: 10 cm and 3 cm (largest dimensions of each tumor). Invades pleura (PL3), main bronchus and chest wall invasion present.

2. Adenocarcinoma and bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (see comment). Histologic subtype: Acinar and papillary (adenocarcinoma); non-mucinous (BAC). Two foci in same lobe: up to 1.0 cm. Pleural invasion absent, chest wall invasion absent.

3. Metastatic carcinoma in 5/7 peribronchial LN's.

Two histologically distinct neoplasms identified in the lobectomy/chest wall resection specimen: Poorly differentiated non-small cell carcinoma, present as two foci; and adenocarcinoma and non-mucinous bronchioloalveolar carcinoma, each present as a separate focus.

SEER will answer the question about the number of primaries to accession. Submit questions about stage to the CoC CAnswer Forum.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Accession two primaries: a mixed adenocarcinoma, acinar and papillary types [8255/3] and a bronchioloalveolar carcinoma, non-mucinous [8252/3].

The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Determine the histology code for each tumor prior to applying the Multiple Primary Rules to determine the number of primaries to accession. There are two non-small cell carcinomas, NOS; the histology code for these two tumors will be 8046/3. There is a single adenocarcinoma with acinar and papillary subtypes tumor, the histology for this tumor will be 8255. There is a single bronchioloalveolar carcinoma, non-mucinous subtype tumor; the histology for this tumor will be 8252/3.

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Lung Multiple Primary rules to determine the number of primaries.

Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M3, because this patient has multiple tumors. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module (from Rule M3 to Rule M12 in this case). Stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing. This patient's adenocarcinoma with acinar and papillary subtypes [8255/3] and non-mucinous bronchioloalveolar carcinoma [8252/3] are multiple primaries.

Perform a second pass through the Multiple Primary rules to determine whether the two non-small cell carcinomas [8046/3] are multiple primaries or manifestations of the same primaries identified in Step 3.

Start at Rule M3 again because this patient has multiple tumors. Again, these rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module (from Rule M3 to Rule M12 in this case). Stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing. This patient's non-small cell carcinomas, NOS [8046/3] are a single primary when compared to the adenocarcinoma with acinar and papillary subtypes [8255/3] and non-mucinous bronchioloalveolar carcinoma [8252/3]. Both of these histologies are more specific types of non-small cell carcinoma per the Lung Histology Groups and Specific Types Chart (Chart 1).

You can also apply Rule M10 for both non-small cell carcinoma, NOS [8046/3] compared to adenocarcinoma with acinar and papillary subtypes [8255/3] and non-small cell carcinoma, NOS [8046/3] compared to non-mucinous bronchioloalveolar carcinoma [8252/3].

 2011