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: 06/04/2026 17:03 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20110016 Behavior--Brain and CNS: Can hemangioblastomas occurring in the CNS be coded as /3 (malignant) based on a radiologic or clinical diagnosis by the physician? See Discussion. Hemangioblastomas are borderline (/1) according to ICD-O. The standard matrix rule in ICD-O directs registrars to change the behavior code to malignant when a malignant (/3) behavior is stated by a physician for a morphology code that appears in ICD-O with a non-malignant behavior code. The "malignant" hemangioblastomas we see are not pathologically confirmed; they are radiological or clinical diagnoses confirmed when renal cell carcinoma is a disease process listed in the malignant differential diagnoses.

The behavior code for hemangioblastoma can be coded to /3 when a pathologist indicates that the behavior is malignant. The behavior code should be based on a pathologist's opinion. It is usually not possible for a radiologist or patient care physician to make this determination clinically.

The histologic appearance of hemangioblastoma may resemble metastatic renal cell carcinoma; therefore, one will often see renal cell carcinoma listed as a possible diagnosis. This does not indicate that the hemangioblastoma is malignant. Do not code the behavior as /3 based on a differential diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma.

2011
20071116 Behavior--Bladder: What behavior code is used for a TURB path specimen diagnosis of "non-invasive urothelial carcinoma, no muscle found, depth of invasion cannot be assessed" when the clinician stages the case as Ta? See Discussion. The SEER site specific coding module for bladder says, "If the only surgery performed is a TURB and if it is documented that depth of invasion cannot be measured because there is no muscle in the specimen, code the behavior as malignant and not in situ."

Assign behavior code 2 [in situ] based on the physician's stage Ta.

When no other information is available and the TNM designation is not available, use the instructions on page C-844 in Appendix C of the 2007 SEER manual as a default.

 2007
20021046 Behavior Code/EOD-Extension--Bladder: If an in situ lesion of the urinary bladder involves the von Brunn nests, is it still in situ? See discussion.

Von Brunn nests: Compact, rounded aggregates of urothelial (transitional) cells in the lamina propria, with or without connection to the surface epithelium.

Urothelial (transitional cell) carcinoma in situ...may involve von Brunn nests...

Histologic Typing of Urinary Bladder Tumours, Second Edition, WHO, pp 12 & 21

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the Behavior Code and the EOD-Extension field according to the pathology report.

If the pathology report states the tumor to be noninvasive or in situ, whether or not von Brunn nests are involved, code behavior as 2 [in situ] and extension as in situ.

If the tumor is described as invasive and involves the von Brunn nests, code the EOD-Extension field to 15 [invasive tumor confined to subepithelial connective tissue] because code 15 includes extension to the lamina propria and von Brunn nests are within the lamina propria.

 2002
20031080 Behavior Code/EOD-Extension--Bladder: How are these fields coded for a bladder tumor in which the pathologist states, "there is no definite invasion identified" but the urologist states the case as T1? See Description.

Patient presents with four bladder tumors, described as "each measuring close to 2 cm." A specimen was taken of only one of the tumors. The tops of the tumors were fulgurated, then vaporized methodically. No obvious tumor or residual was noted on re-inspection.

Pathology revealed papillary urothelial carcinoma, high grade, with no definite invasion identified. Small segments of muscularis propria were present. A comment read..."it is difficult to determine if lamina propria invasion is present due to marked necrosis and tissue fragmentation." Urologist staged this as AJCC cT2a, but based on the pathology findings changed it to cT1. The urologist insists this is invasive.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Because of the damage to the specimen from cautery and the insistence of the urologist that the tumor was invasive, code extension for this case to 15 based on the physician's TNM category of T1.

A T1 is invasive--code the behavior /3. The urologist is confident it is invasive, and will likely treat the patient accordingly.

 2003
20041096 Behavior Code--Breast: How is this field coded for a "non-invasive Paget disease of the breast?" See Discussion. Historically, SEER collected Paget Disease of the breast with a behavior code of 3 [invasive]. There is no documentation to support this. The SEER EOD Manual only states that if the code is "05" [Pagets disease (without underlying tumor)], the behavior must be a 2 [in situ] or a 3 [invasive].

Code the behavior as /2 [in situ] for noninvasive Paget disease of breast. Noninvasive is a synonym of in situ.

If the pathology report documents that the Paget disease is in situ, the matrix principle in ICD-O allows you to change the behavior code to match the pathologist's statement.

 2004
20071046 Ambiguous Terminology: Why was 60 days chosen for ambiguous terminology?

The Histology Task Force approved a 60 day time frame for ambiguous terminology.

The majority of cases are first identified by ambiguous terminology; for example, a patient has a mammogram that shows a lesion suspicious for cancer. That first indication of cancer prompts a work-up to either confirm or rule-out the cancer diagnosis.

The data item "Ambiguous terminology" is not intended to capture information on this routine method of detecting and diagnosing cancer. The 60 day time frame should keep these cases out of the ambiguous terminology data item.

The data item is intended to identify those cases where the cancer diagnosis is NOT confirmed during the work-up, but the case is still entered into the database. For example a patient who has a TRUS because of elevated PSA. The pathology from the TRUS says "Suspicious for adenocarcinoma of the prostate." The physician only documents that the patient is to return in 6 months for another PSA and TRUS. The registrar would enter this case into the data base because the word "suspicious" is on the ambiguous terminology list.

 2007
20071047 Ambiguous Terminology: Why do the instructions for this field use the term "accession" rather than "abstract"? The purpose of the new data item "Ambiguous Terminology" is to identify cases that were put into the cancer registry database without a conclusive diagnosis. The decision to accession the case was influenced by ambigous terminology. The emphasis is on accessioning the case rather than abstracting it. 2007
20000277 Ambiguous Terminology: Should SEER's lists of ambiguous terminology be modified to reflect how pathologists and radiologists actually use these terms? See discussion. Pathologists and radiologists say the term "suggestive" is used to describe a lesion that may be malignant, and the term "suspicious" is not used to describe lesions that may be malignant. According to the physician director of our Breast Center the FDA governs the use of terminology, and the term "highly suggestive" instead of "highly suspicious" must be used if there is a greater chance that a mass is malignant.

We recognize that the way clinicians and registrars speak is often different, and that the differences vary from region to region.

Our Medical Advisory Board reviewed the lists of ambiguous terminology before they were included in the third edition of the SEER EOD and the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2004. Since that time, specific terminology has been mandated for describing mammography results. We know some of these terms are discrepant with our ambiguous terminology list.

As of 2007, the standard setters (CoC, NPCR, SEER and CCCR) all use the same ambiguous terminology list. Changes to the list must be approved by the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee.

 2000
20081033 Ambiguous terminology: Is the phrase "malignancy is highly considered" reportable given that the phrase "considered to be malignant" is reportable per SINQ 20061094?

"Malignancy is highly considered" is not a reportable ambiguous term.

Diagnoses qualified by the phrase "considered to be malignant" are reportable because this phrase is interpreted as "This diagnosis is malignant."

 2008
20071045 Ambiguous Terminology: How is this field to be coded when there is a "conclusive term" exactly 60 days following the initial diagnosis? See Discussion. Is code 1 [Ambiguous terminology diagnosis only within 60 days of initial diagnosis] or code 2 [Ambiguous term followed by a conclusive term more than 60 days after the initial diagnosis] to be used for a case that had a conclusive diagnosis at 60 days from initial diagnosis? The instructions on page 97 do not match the code definitions on page 95.

The definition for code 2 should be "More than 60 days" after the date of diagnosis.

Code 1 is 60 days or less, code 2 is more than 60 days.

This will be clarified in the first revision to the MP/H manual.

 2007