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: 08/15/2025 11:40 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
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.

 2014
20130222 MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: How is the histology coded for a single bladder tumor showing invasive urothelial carcinoma with extensive divergent differentiation including small cell carcinoma, micropapillary carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma features? See Discussion. MP/H rules seem to lead to Rule H8 which indicates that one use the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code. If one applies Rule H8, the histology is coded to 8131/3 [micropapillary urothelial carcinoma]. That would ignore the small cell carcinoma, which seems prognostically more significant. Code the histology to 8045/3 [mixed small cell carcinoma], a combination of small cell with other types of carcinoma. There is currently no rule in the urinary site MP/H Rules for this combination of histologies. This will be included in the next revision of the MP/H Rules. 2013
20130221 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Prostate: How many primaries are accessioned for a diagnosis of metastatic small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the prostate following a previous diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the prostate? See Discussion.

Would a second prostate primary with histology coded to 8041/3 [small cell carcinoma] be accessioned for the following examples? Or are these metastases despite the different histologies?

Example 1: Prostate adenocarcinoma diagnosed in 2001, no treatment given. Metastatic small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma diagnosed 03/2012 on liver biopsy with a physician's statement in 4/2012 that the prostate is likely the cause of the metastasis to the liver.

Example 2: Prostate adenocarcinoma diagnosed in 2006, treated with TURP. Bone marrow biopsy in 5/2012 shows involvement by metastatic small cell carcinoma with morphologic and immunophenotypic features that argue against prostatic adenocarcinoma. The oncologist assessment states, "The patient has Stage 4 small cell carcinoma of the prostate and the bone marrow biopsy path shows metastatic small cell carcinoma (likely prostate in origin)."

Accession two primaries, adenocarcinoma [8140/3] of the prostate [C619], followed by small cell (neuroendocrine) carcinoma [8041/3] of the prostate [C619] for each of the examples given per Rule M10.

In each case, the second histology (because it is not adenocarcinoma) is a new prostate primary. Small cell carcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma are not adenocarcinomas. As a result they are not covered by Rule M3.

2013
20130220 Reportability--Thyroid: Is a hyalinizing trabecular neoplasm of the thyroid reportable? See Discussion. The pathology comment states: Hyalinizing trabecular neoplasm is considered by some to represent a variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma because of the similar nuclear cytology, immunoprofile and RET-oncogene rearrangements.

Hyalinizing trabecular neoplasm is not reportable.

Hyalinizing trabecular neoplasm, or hyalinizing trabecular tumor, is a synonym for hyalinizing trabecular adenoma [8336/0] in the ICD-O-3. The 2004 WHO classification states that "fine needle aspiration biopsy is often interpreted as papillary carcinoma because of the nuclear features in the tumor."

2013
20130219 Date of diagnosis/Ambiguous terminology--Breast: Can a mammogram BIRADS 4 or 5 assessment be used to assess reportability and can the date of the mammogram be used to code the date of diagnosis? See Discussion.

  1. Assessment: BIRADS category 4-suspicious. Findings are considered suspicious/indeterminate for malignancy

  • Assessment: BIRADS 5- highly suspicious. Findings are highly suggestive of malignancy.

  • Assessment: BIRADS 4- suspicious abnormality consider biopsy

    • Can the BIRADS number be used to assess reportability? Can a BIRADS assessment of "suspicious" be used to code the date of diagnosis?

    		BIRADS category 4 and category 5 mammograms are not to be interpreted as a reportable "malignancy" for cancer registry purposes nor are they to be used to code the date of diagnosis should the patient subsequently have a malignancy confirmed. 2013
    		20130218 2013
    		20130216

    Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Need help determining primary site for Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma 9680/3 confirmed pathologically in right ovary and soft tissue left adnexa. No lymph nodes examined pathologically. Patient treated outside and no access to notes. See discussion.

    CT A/P massively enlarged uterus with no distention between the vagina, cervix or proximal to mid uterus identified. Highly concerning for malignancy though distinct etiology not clear. Ovarian not favored though not excluded given lack of clearly defined fat planes between uterus and either ovary. Extensive bilateral iliac chain and periaortic/pericaval lymphadenopathy.

    Trying to work through Module 7 in the Hem DB. According to the ovary site, regional lymph nodes include the iliac and the para-aortic lymph nodes. This makes me think I should use Rule PH35 (organ and regional nodes). However, using Appendix C in the Hem DB, the iliac lymph nodes are part of the pelvic C775 while the para-aortic (periaortic) are intra-abdominal C772. This makes me wonder if I should go with rule PH36 present in organ and nodes that are not regional.

    Use Rule PH25 and code primary site to C569.

    First determine if the iliac and para-aortic lymph nodes are regional for Ovary. Use AJCC TNM or Collaborative Stage. Per AJCC 7th edition, regional lymph nodes for ovary include iliac and para-aortic (pg. 419). Therefore, this case involves an organ and its regional lymph nodes. Use appendix C to determine how to code a lymph node primary. It should not be used to determine whether lymph nodes are regional for a specific organ.

    		2013
    		20130215

    Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis synonymous with an EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disorder in children reportable? See Discussion.

    Pathology report states: Prominent T-cell infiltrate with frequent immunoblast-like cells. COMMENT: Findings consistent with an acute EBV-associated hemophagocytic process. In addition, there is a prominent CD8 + T-cell infiltrate with many large, activated forms. This T-cell process may represent an EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disorder in children.

    EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disorder in children is listed in the Heme database. However, throughout multiple admissions, the oncologist states the diagnosis as "hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis". Are the two the same condition?

    The patient is being treated with Etoposide.

    Per Appendix F, do not report this case based on the information provided.

    The oncologist likely used the pathology report and clinical factors to determine the diagnosis of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, which is not reportable. Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis is caused by an over stimulated immune system (infection, etc.). This clinical syndrome is associated with a variety of underlying conditions. To be reportable, it must state "fulminant hemophagocytic syndrome" (in a child) to be reportable (9724/3).

    The pathology report for this case is not definitive. It states that the process "may" represent the EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disorder in children.

    Follow back on this case to confirm reportability if possible.

    		 2013
    		20130214 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Does Rule PH20 apply if a patient with lymphoma has bilateral axillary and bilateral inguinal lymph node involvement? Rule PH20 states to code the primary site to the specific lymph node region when multiple lymph node chains within the same region as defined by ICD-O-3 are involved. Note 1 further states that one is to use this rule when there is bilateral involvement of lymph nodes.

    Rule PH21 applies to this situation which states to code the primary site to multiple lymph node regions, NOS (C778) when multiple lymph node regions, as defined by ICD-O-3, are involved and it is not possible to identify the lymph node region where the lymphoma originated. Axillary nodes are coded to C773 and inguinal nodes are coded to C774. There are two lymph node regions involved. Code the primary site to C778 [multiple lymph nodes].

    If this patient had only bilateral axillary OR only bilateral inguinal nodes are involved, then PH20 would have applied and you would code to the specific lymph node region mentioned.

    		2013
    		20130213 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How do you code the primary site for a marginal zone lymphoma involving bilateral axillary lymph nodes and inguinal lymph nodes, bone marrow and bilateral orbits that the physician refers to as a bilateral orbital lymphoma, Stage IV? See Discussion.

    None of the rules seem to apply when the lymphoma is present in an organ, distant lymph nodes and bone marrow only. No regional nodes are involved.

    Does rule PH22 infer that the organ should be coded as the primary site because it has been named by the physician?

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

    Per Rule PH24, code primary site to orbit. According to Rule PH24, one is to code the primary site to the organ when lymphoma is present only in an organ. Note 2 under this rule also instructs one to capture the secondary involvement of distant lymph nodes and/or bone marrow in CS extension fields.

    If the physician had not confirmed the primary site as orbit, you would have used Rule PH22 when the primary site is not indicated.

    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