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: 10/24/2025 12:47 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20170002

Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are cavernous sinus meningiomas reportable? See Discussion.

 

Per SINQ 20160068, sphenoid wing meningiomas are reportable (unless stated to be intraosseous) because they arise from the meninges overlying or along the sphenoid wing/sphenoid bone. These are intracranial and not intraosseous meningiomas.

Therefore, wouldn't this logic also apply to cavernous sinus meningiomas? These are tumors that arise from the meninges of an intracranial space, not from bone or soft tissue. The cavernous sinus is a "true dural venous sinus" within the skull. While not specifically about meningiomas, SINQ 20071095 states a benign tumor in the cavernous sinus is coded to C490. This SINQ would still seem valid for a benign tumor like a blood vessel tumor, but not for a meningioma that doesn't arise from soft tissue or blood vessels.

Cavernous sinus meningiomas are reportable, as the meningioma arises in the meninges unless stated otherwise. This is similar to sphenoid wing meningiomas.

2017
20170063

Reportability/Behavior--Ovary: Is adult granulosa cell tumor a reportable malignant tumor if the primary ovarian tumor ruptured intraoperatively, the peritoneum was contaminated, and the patient underwent adjuvant treatment with chemotherapy given the increased risk of recurrence due to intraoperative tumor spill? See Discussion.

Per SINQ 20130176 and 20140034, adult granulosa cell tumors of the ovary are reportable malignant tumors when there are peritoneal implants or metastases. The SINQ responses describe how these adult granulosa cell tumors are different from low malignant potential (LMP) epithelial ovarian tumors. Would these SINQ scenarios apply to a case with intraoperative tumor rupture that resulted in peritoneal tumor?

In this case, the pathologist indicated these excised peritoneal specimens were favored to be intraoperative contamination with adult granulosa cell tumor. However, the oncologist went on to treat this patient as high risk with chemotherapy. The oncologist only described one of the pelvic peritoneal implants as possibly contamination due to the rupture. The oncologist never indicated the tumors were definitely peritoneal implants. Should the behavior of this tumor be /1 because the peritoneal tumor appears to be contamination, or /3 because the oncologist treated this patient as high risk?

If the "implants" were due to intraoperative contamination and were not present prior to surgery, do not interpret them as indicative of malignancy. The behavior of this tumor is /1.

 2017
20120020

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be accessioned when a lumpectomy shows a single 6 mm "infiltrating mammary adenocarcinoma, histologic type: ductal (tubular)" tumor, and "peritumoral microscopic foci of solid type ductal carcinoma in situ"? See Discussion.

Per SINQ 20091117, tubular (ductal) carcinoma would be coded to 8211/3 [tubular]. However, in that case the tubular/ductal carcinoma is composed of a single tumor. In this case, the foci of DCIS were specifically stated to be peritumoral, and not a part of the infiltrating tubular carcinoma.

Are these microscopic foci of DCIS a separate primary per Rule M12 and SINQ 20110092 [two primaries are accessioned when one tumor is invasive and another is in situ, and histology codes differ at 1st, 2nd or 3rd numbers]? Does the size of the DCIS matter when there are two distinct histologies? Abstracting a second primary for these microscopic foci seems like over-reporting.

The following answers depend on what this pathologist means by "ductal (tubular)." According to the WHO classification, tubular is not a duct subtype. Check with the pathologist if possible to determine if the intended meaning is "tubular carcinoma" or "duct carcinoma".

If the pathologist uses the expression "ductal (tubular)" as an equivalent of "tubular carcinoma": Accession two primaries, a tubular carcinoma [8211/3] and a ductal carcinoma in situ, solid type [8230/2].

For cases diagnosed 2007 and later, the steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Determine the provisional histologies of these tumors in order to apply the Multiple Primary rules. Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a breast primary, use the Breast Histology rules to determine the histology codes because there are site specific rules for breast primaries.

Determine the histology of in situ carcinoma, solid type ductal carcinoma in situ. Start at Rule H1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the applicable Module. Code the more specific histologic term when the diagnosis is intraductal carcinoma and a type of intraductal carcinoma. Solid is a specific type of DCIS. The histology is 8230/2.

Determine the histology of the invasive carcinoma, tubular carcinoma. Start at Rule H10. Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified, Tubular carcinoma was the only type identified. The histology is 8211/3.

Go to the Breast MP rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual after determining the histology of each tumor. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS Module, Rule M4, because the patient has a single invasive tumor and separate foci of DCIS. These tumors have ICD-O-3 histology codes that are different at the third (xxx) number and are, therefore, multiple primaries.

If the pathologist uses the expression "ductal (tubular)" as an equivalent of "duct carcinoma": Accession a single primary, a duct carcinoma [8500/3].

For cases diagnosed 2007 and later, the steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Go to the Breast MP rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS Module, Rule M4 because the patient has a single invasive duct carcinoma and separate foci of solid type ductal carcinoma in situ. Multiple intraductal and/or duct carcinomas are a single primary. Table 1 identifies solid type as a specific type of intraductal carcinoma.

Go to the Breast Histology rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS ABSTRACTED AS A SINGLE PRIMARY Module, Rule H20. Code the invasive histology when both invasive and in situ tumors are present. Code the histology as 8500/3 [duct carcinoma].

 2012
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. 2010
20120087

MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney: How is the histology coded and what rule(s) apply for "cyst associated renal cell carcinoma," "cystic renal cell carcinoma," and "cystic renal cell carcinoma, clear cell type"? See Discussion.

 

Per SINQ 20031008, these histologies were all coded as 8316/3 [cyst associated renal cell carcinoma]. What are the correct codes for these histologies using the 2007 MP/H Rules?

 

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the correct histology code for both cyst associated renal cell carcinoma and cystic renal cell carcinoma is 8316/3. The histology code for cystic renal cell carcinoma, clear cell type is 8255/3.

The steps used to arrive at these decisions are:

 

Step 1: Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). Go to the Kidney Histology rules because site specific rules have been developed for this primary.

 

Step 2: For the first histology, cyst associated renal cell carcinoma, start at the SINGLE TUMOR module, Rule H1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. Stop at Rule H5. According to this rule you are to use Table 1 if you have a renal cell carcinoma and mention of a more specific renal cell type. To locate Table 1, go to Kidney under the Terms & Definitions section. Per Table 1, titled Renal Cell Carcinomas and Specific Renal Cell Types, "cyst associated" is a specific type of renal cell carcinoma. Code the histology to 8316/3 [cyst associated renal cell carcinoma].

 

Step 3: For the second histology, cystic renal cell carcinoma start at the SINGLE TUMOR module, Rule H1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. Stop at Rule H5. As in the previous example you are to use Table 1 if you have a renal cell carcinoma and mention of a more specific renal cell type. Per Table 1 "cystic" is a specific type of renal cell carcinoma. Code the histology to 8316/3 [cystic renal cell carcinoma].

 

Step 4: For the third histology, cystic renal cell carcinoma, clear cell type, start at the SINGLE TUMOR module, Rule H1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. Stop at Rule H6 which states you are to code histology to 8255 (adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes) when there are two or more specific renal cell carcinoma types. To determine whether "clear cell" and "cystic" are types of renal cell carcinoma use Table 1 again. According to Table 1, both cystic and clear cell are specific types of renal cell carcinoma. Code the histology as 8255/3 [adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes].

 

2012
20100103 Reportability--Corpus uteri: Is gestational trophoblastic neoplasia reportable if there is no mention of metastasis but the patient has been treated with chemotherapy? See Discussion.

Per SINQ 20021106, for tumors diagnosed prior to 2007, a clinical diagnosis of metastatic gestational trophoblastic disease was to be coded to histology 9100/3 [Choriocarcinoma]. "Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia includes the diagnosis of choriocarcinoma."

Do not report gestational trophoblastic neoplasia unless stated to be malignant. 2010
20200009

First course treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Corpus uteri: Is an omentectomy performed with a hysterectomy for an endometrial primary site recorded under Surgery of Other Site? See Discussion.

Per SEER 20140003, an omentectomy is not recorded under Surgery of Other Site when performed with a hysterectomy for an endometrial primary. Is this still correct? CoC appears to have different guidelines stating in a forum that an omentectomy is coded in data item Surgical Procedure to Other Site. I would like to confirm SEER guidelines. Is this one of those unique situations that SEER and STORE differ? Our state follows SEER guidelines and would like to communicate the appropriate rules to our facilities.

Continue to record an omentectomy performed with a hysterectomy under Surgery of Primary Site and not as a separate procedure under Surgical Procedure of Other Site. The guidance In SINQ 2014003 and 20091118 is unchanged.

 2020
20100033

Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is this field coded for a case described as follicular lymphoma, grade 3a/3 [9698/3], with focal areas of diffuse large B cell lymphoma [9680/3] (approximately 10%)? Does the term "focal" have the same significance in Heme cases as it does for solid tumors? See Discussion.

Per rule PH11, "Code the primary site to the site of origin (lymph node region(s), tissue, or organ) and code the histology diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (9680/3) when DLBCL and any other non-Hodgkin lymphoma are present in the same lymph node(s), lymph node region(s), organ(s), tissue(s) or bone marrow."

Should the focal diffuse large B cell lymphoma be ignored in this case and rule PH11 not be applied? To apply rule PH11, does the follicular lymphoma have to be NOS [9690/3] or does PH11 include all grades of follicular lymphoma [9695/3, 9691/3, 9698/3]?

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

First, you need to determine how many primaries are to be accessioned. Per Rule M4, abstract a single primary* when two or more types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma are simultaneously present in the same anatomic location(s), such as the same lymph node or lymph node region(s), the same organ(s), and/or the same tissue(s).

Code the histology to 9680/3 [Diffuse large B cell lymphoma] per rule PH11 when DLBCL and any other non-Hodgkin lymphoma are present in the same lymph node(s), lymph node region(s), organ(s), tissue(s) or bone marrow. Follicular lymphoma (FL), which is a non-Hodgkin lymphoma, includes FL, NOS, FL grade 1, FL grade 2 and FL grade 3.

Focal, foci, and focus are not used in the hematopoietic rules, meaning that you DO NOT ignore histology terms described as focal, foci, or focus.

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
20170007

MP/H Rules/Histology--Urinary System: How should histology be coded when there are multiple bladder, ureter and renal pelvis urothelial tumors including non-invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma in the left ureter, invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma invading the lamina propria in the bladder, and an invasive sarcomatoid urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis that invades the muscularis? See Discussion.

Per Rule M8, this is a single primary as there are multiple urothelial tumors as outlined in Table 1 (papillary urothelial carcinoma [8130] and sarcomatoid urothelial carcinoma [8122]) simultaneously present in multiple urinary organs (bladder, ureter and renal pelvis). As Rule M8 indicates these are a single primary, despite the histologies differing at the third digit (8130 vs 8122), then Rule H14 (Code the histology of the most invasive tumor) seems to be the most applicable histology rule. Following Rule H14 (in the Text version of the MP/H Rules), the histology would be coded as 8122 (sarcomatoid urothelial carcinoma) since the renal pelvis tumor was the most invasive tumor present.

However, in both the Matrix and Flowchart versions of the MP/H Rules, Rule H14 contains a note (missing from the Text version) that states that this rule should only be used when the first three numbers of the histology codes are identical (This is a single primary). Rule M8 clearly tells us these are a single primary, despite the differences at the third digit of the histology. Further defaulting to Rule H15 (Code the numerically higher histology code) in this case would ignore the histology of the tumor with the worse prognosis (the most invasive tumor). Was this note included in the Matrix and Flowchart versions in error?

Code the histology as 8122 according to the MP/H rules for Renal Pelvis, Ureter, Bladder, and Other Urinary, M8 and H14. Rule M8 states urothelial tumors in two or more of urinary sites including bladder and renal pelvis are a single primary. Rule H14 states code the histology of the most invasive tumors for multiple tumors abstracted as a single primary.

 2017
20110017

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are reported if a patient originally diagnosed with CLL is subsequently diagnosed several months later on a bone marrow biopsy with Richter's syndrome that transformed into a large cell lymphoma? See Discussion.

Per reviewed resources, the described condition is rare. Should the histology remain CLL or be changed to large cell lymphoma?

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

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 more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis. The first primary is CLL [9823/3] and it is a chronic neoplasm. The second primary is diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) [9680/3] and it is an acute neoplasm.

Richter syndrome (RS) is a complication of B cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or hairy cell leukemia (HCL) in which the leukemia changes into DLBCL. There is also a less common variant in which the CLL changes into a Hodgkin lymphoma. Richter's transformation affects about 5% of CLL patients. Richter syndrome is listed under the Alternate Names section in the Heme DB for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3].

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.

 2011