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: 05/27/2026 04:57 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20110081 MP/H Rules/Histology--Pancreas: What is the correct histology code for pancreatic neoplasia III (PanIN III) for cases diagnosed in 2007 and later?

Code histology for PanIN-III to 8148/2 [Glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III]. The Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual is the correct source for coding histology.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the following steps are used to determine the histology code:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a pancreas primary, use the Other Sites Histo rules to determine the histology code because pancreas does not have site specific rules.

Go to the SINGLE TUMOR: IN SITU ONLY module, start at rule H1. Code 8148/2 [Glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III]. There is only one histologic type identified.

In the next version of the MP/H rules, the H22 rule "Code 8148/2 (Glandular intraepithelial neoplasia grade III) for in situ glandular in sites such as the (PAIN III)" will be included under H2 as well. Currently the rule is only in the MULTIPLE TUMORS ABSTRACTED AS A SINGLE PRIMARY module and should also be include under the SINGLE TUMOR: IN SITU only module.

2011
20110015 Primary site/Histology: Do the 4/1/09 changes in the ICD-O-3 Site/Type Validation table regarding the coding of primary site for intestinal type adenocarcinoma mean that the former valid site/histology combinations are now impossible and require review from a given diagnosis date forward? See Discussion.

Per the SEER Errata for ICD-O-3 Site/Type Validation List, April 1, 2009, adenocarcinoma, intestinal type, was removed as a valid site/histology combination for the following primary sites: C150-C155, C158-C159, C170-C173, C178-C179, C180-C189, C199, C209, C210-C212, C218.

  • Does this mean that these combinations cannot be used? If so, then why is an override allowed for these site/type combinations? Shouldn't these site/type combinations be added to the impossible site/type combinations table?

  • SINQ 20081085 states that "8144/3 will be removed from the valid site/histology list for large intestine, small intestine, and rectum." It appears from the Site/Type Validation table that a decision was made to also remove esophagus sites as a valid combination with histology code of 8144. Please explain the rationale.

  • Cases that were miscoded to 8144/3 will need to be identified for correction. What date of diagnosis should be the reference point used in making the necessary corrections related to this change? Do we only need to review cases diagnosed 1/1/2009 forward or should all cases be corrected regardless of date of diagnosis?

    • The site/type edit identifies unlikely combinations of primary site and histologic type.

  • Intestinal type adenocarcinoma occurs in the stomach. It would be rare in another primary site, but not impossible.

  • It was decided that all digestive organ sites, except stomach, would be removed from the list. That is why esophagus is not listed as a valid site.

  • The site/type edit is for all years. Cases for all years have to be reviewed for combinations of site and type that are no longer on the list. If it is documented in the medical record that the primary site and histology combination are valid, set the over-ride flag so that the case will not come up for review again.

    		• 2011
    		20110138

    First course treatment--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is first course of treatment when a patient received multiple different chemotherapy regimens before a complete remission for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma was achieved?

    The patient was initially treated with involved field radiation and R-CHOP. The patient still had residual disease and the treatment was changed to RICE. Following RICE, there was still residual disease and the patient underwent another unspecified chemotherapy treatment. The patient was then transferred to a transplant center for pre-transplant chemotherapy and a bone marrow transplant. The patient achieved a complete response after transplant.

    Should the R-CHOP and radiation be the first course treatment in a case like this, or would first course treatment include all chemotherapy and the transplant?

    For hard-to-treat diseases such as DLBCL, the treatment plan outlined prior to treatment beginning may indicate, "The first course of treatment will be radiation and R-CHOP. If the R-CHOP does not achieve remission, we will use RICE." In other words, the first course treatment plan includes a second round of chemotherapy if the patient has not achieved a complete response after the R-CHOP and radiation. If the treatment plan was documented like this for the patient, the first course treatment includes R-CHOP, involved field radiation and RICE.

    However, if there is no initial treatment plan in the medical record, all treatment provided after the date when "residual disease" or "failed to achieve remission" is documented in the medical record is either second or a subsequent course of therapy.

    		 2011
    		20110006 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Are all stages of CLL reportable? See Discussion. If a physician notes the patient has Stage 0 CLL (increasing leukocytosis), is this reportable? CLL Stage is not mentioned in the Hematopoietic Manual or Database, but internet research reveals CLL has five stages (Stage 0, I, II, III, and IV).

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

    Yes. All stages of CLL are reportable. CLL has a unique staging system. The Heme DB and Manual do not address the issue of stage. Therefore, stage information is not reported in the Abstractor Notes section of the Heme DB.

    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
    		20110009 Diagnostic confirmation/Date of diagnosis--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are these fields coded for a 2/11/10 negative bone marrow biopsy with cytogenetic abnormalities if the physician makes a clinical diagnosis of refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia on 2/25/10? See Discussion.

    2/11/10 bone marrow biopsy revealed "mild trilineal dysplastic changes in conjunction with chronicity of cytopenias is worrisome for MDS." Cytogenetics are positive for 5q deletion. Clinicopathologic correlation required for final diagnosis. On 2/25/10 the physician confirms a diagnosis of refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia.

    Is the date of diagnosis 2/11/10 with diagnostic confirmation of 3 or 2/25/10 with diagnostic confirmation of 8?

    The date of diagnosis is 2/25/10 and diagnostic confirmation is coded to 8 [clinical diagnosis only].

    As the cytogenetics state, you need clinicopathologic correlation to get confirm a reportable diagnosis. There is no reportable diagnosis from the bone marrow biopsy. The cytogenetics were done (the pathologic part) and then the physician confirmed refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia [9985/3] (the clinical part). The diagnostic process and the determination of a reportable diagnosis were completed when the clinician made the statement that this is refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia.

    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
    		20110145 MP/H Rules/Recurrence--Skin: If a pathologist does not review the August 2008 slides, how many primaries are accessioned for a patient diagnosed and treated for a dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans of the left upper inner arm in August 2008 who subsequently had a "recurrence" noted in October 2010 located in the scar of the original primary?

    Abstract as a single primary: dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans [8832/3] of the left upper inner arm [C446] diagnosed in August 2008.

    The rationale for this answer was provided by subject matter experts. The physician specialists for soft tissue and bone replied as follows:

    Low-grade sarcomas tend to recur locally. Because this tumor recurred in same area, i.e. scar of prior surgery, and recurred in this period of time, this is a local recurrence. Dermatofibrosarcoma Protuberans is a low grade tumor which can recur many years following tumor excision.

    		2011
    		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.

    		2011
    		20110082 First course treatment/Other therapy--Skin: How is PUVA [psoralen (P) and long-wave ultraviolet radiation (UVA)] coded when used for skin primaries such as melanoma and mycosis fungoides? Code PUVA as "Other treatment" with Code 1 - Other. We do not have a code specifically for ultraviolet radiation. 2011
    		20110116

    MP/H/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code for "heterologous biphasic sarcomatoid carcinoma of the lung with prominent rhabdomyoblastic and adenoca differentiation"?

    The expert pathologist recommends coding histology to 8980/3 [Carcinosarcoma] for this combination histology.

    Expert consultation: The designation "carcinosarcoma" is given when the pathology shows differentiation in both the sarcomatous (rhabdomyoblastic) and carcinomatous (adenoca) elements. This is emphasized in the path for this case with the term "biphasic." The term "heterologous" mean that the sarcomatous component is of a type not normal to lung. Rhabdomyoblastic means skeletal muscle differentiation. Because skeletal muscle is not normally found in lung it is heterologous. If it were smooth muscle, it would be homologous because smooth muscle is found in lung (as a part of the bronchi).

    		 2011
    		20110058 Date of diagnosis/Flag: Will the Date of Diagnosis Flag ever be used if the instructions for coding Date of Diagnosis are followed? See Discussion.

    If an abstractor follows the instructions for coding the Date of Diagnosis and can at least estimate a year of diagnosis, in what scenario will the Flag be used?

    Per the 2010 SEER Manual,

    Page 49 Date of Diagnosis, second paragraph, "Regardless of the format, at least Year of diagnosis must be known or estimated. Year of diagnosis cannot be blank or unknown." The manual gives the following guidelines for coding diagnosis date/flag:

    Page 50, Coding Instructions:

    3. If no information about the date of diagnosis is available

    a. Use the date of admission as the date of diagnosis

    b. In the absence of an admission date, code the date of first treatment as the date of diagnosis.

    Page 51, Coding Instructions:

    9. Estimate the date of diagnosis if an exact date is not available. Use all information available to calculate the month and year of diagnosis.

    Page 53, Date of Diagnosis Flag, Coding Instructions:

    Always leave blank. Date of Diagnosis will always be a full or partial date recorded.

    		 The date of diagnosis flag should always be blank. 2011