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: 05/25/2026 10:37 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20031083 Grade, Differentiation: How is this field coded when the only description in the pathology report is "non-high grade?" Code "non-high grade" as 9 [unknown]. 2003
20031100

Date of diagnosis: Can a positive VMA:HVA test be used as a date of diagnosis for neuroblastoma? See Description.

Rubin's Clinical Oncology states: Both the catecholamines and their metabolites are used as markers for neuroblastoma, with vanillylmandelic acid (VMA) and homovanillic acid (HVA) being the most commonly used. While their absolute values are not of prognostic significance, a higher VMA:HVA ratio suggests a better prognosis for patients with disseminated disease.

Updated answer July 2024

No. Do not code the neuroblastoma diagnosis date from only the date of an elevated urine catecholamine test (VMA or HVA). Neuroblastoma diagnosis should be made on the basis of tissue biopsy or bone marrow aspiration along with elevated urinary catecholamines. Elevated urinary catecholamines alone are not diagnostic of neuroblastoma.

 2003
20031034

Histology (Pre-2007)--Kidney, renal pelvis: What codes are used to represent the histologies of 1) "renal papillary (chromophil) carcinoma" and 2) "chromophil renal cell carcinoma?"

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code "chromophil" to 8260 [papillary renal cell]. According to our pathologist consultant, in the case of chromophil, most authors regard this as more or less synonymous with papillary renal cell [8260]. "More or less" because papillary is an old term descriptive of the microscopic structure, while chromophil is newer and based on the cytology; because most of the latter are papillary the current usage assumes them to be equivalent.

1) The diagnosis "renal papillary (chromophil) carcinoma" tells us that the pathologist who wrote it was seeing both pattern and cytologic features, and is regarding papillary equivalent to chromophil; thus, code to 8260.

2) Code "chromophil renal cell carcinoma" to 8260.

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2003
20031092

Histology (Pre-2007)/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: How is the histology of invasive small cell carcinoma of lobular histogenesis coded?

Could high grade ductal carcinoma in situ, comedo type be a recurrence of ductal carcinoma diagnosed 18 years earlier?

Is "invasive small cell carcinoma of lobular histogenesis, high grade ductal carcinoma in situ, comedo type" one or two primaries? See Description.

 A patient was diagnosed in 1984 with 1st breast primary, histology was ductal carcinoma, T1N0, LIQ left breast. In 2002 a mass was found on mammogram, MRM with axillary sampling performed. Histology was invasive small cell carcinoma of lobular histogenesis, high grade ductal carcinoma in situ, comedo type, nuclear grade 3/3, T2N1, UOQ left breast. Is the ductal carcinoma in situ recurrent disease from the 1st primary? Does it go with the lobular histogenesis, i.e., lobular carcinoma and DCIS histology code 8522/3 or is the ductal in situ a 3rd primary?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

According to our pathologist consultant:

Invasive small cell carcinoma of lobular histogenesis appears to be an unusual histology for a breast primary. Code it as such 8041 [Small cell carcinoma, NOS].

The 2002 lesion is most likely a new primary since the previous lesion was 18 years ago, in a different quadrant, and invasive. A comedo DCIS would probably not be asymtomatic for 18 years; an unlikely "recurrence" of an earlier ducal carcinoma.

Code "invasive small cell carcinoma of lobular histogenesis, high grade ductal carcinoma in situ, comedo type" as two primaries. Code the small cell as a separate primary (8041/3), and the DCIS separately (8501/2).

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2003
20031102

Histology (Pre-2007)--Lung: Should the histology "Polymorphic Adenocarcinoma" be coded to 8022/33 [Polymorphic Carcinoma] or 8140/33 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS]?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

The histology code for pleomorphic adenocarcinoma of the lung is 8140 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS]. According to our pathologist consultant, "Given lung as primary site I prefer 8140. This loses the pleomorphic modifier, but going to 8022 loses the adeno- designation which is more important. Pathologists occasionally use pleomorphic carcinoma for lung tumors which otherwise dont show any adeno or squamous differentiation, for which 8022 would be appropriate, but in this case we do have the adeno designation."

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2003
20031145 EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: Is this field coded 10 [Invasive tumor confined to one of the following subsites: interior wall, one lateral wall, posterior wall] or 30 [Localized, NOS] for tonsillar primary when there is no mention of involvement of surrounding structures? See Description. Site is stated to be "left tonsil" and was coded to site C099. "The lesion is admixed in tonsillar tissue." No surrounding structures are stated to be involved. Is it logical to assume that since code C099 includes the palantine tonsils and the palatine tonsils are on the lateral wall and since no other areas are stated to be involved that extension code 10 [confined to one lateral wall] would be more appropriate than code 30 [localized NOS]? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD-extension for the case example to 10 [Invasive tumor confined to one of the following subsites: anterior wall, one lateral wall, posterior wall]. The tonsil lies in a pocket on the wall (tonsillar fossa), so you know it is confined to the wall. 2003
20031068

EOD-Extension--Colon: Is a pathology description of "superficial invasion of the muscularis mucosa in the upper stalk of the polyp" coded in this field to 10 [mucosa (including intramucosal) NOS], 12 [Muscularis mucosa], or 14 [Stalk of polyp]? See Description.

Do we use the highest applicable value because all three definitions are used in the following example? Ex: Path diagnosis: Sigmoid polyp: tubulovillous adenoma with a focus within upper portion of stalk consistent with superficially invasive (intramucosal) colonic adenocarcinoma (see Comment). Comment: ... in the upper stalk region, there is evidence of superficially invasive carcinoma which appears to be limited to the muscularis mucosa and thus would be intramucosal by classification.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code extension as 12 [muscularis mucosae]. For this case, "upper stalk" is a reference to location rather than extension. This adenocarcinoma extends to the muscularis mucosa.

 2003
20031098 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Date of diagnosis--Cervix: How is this field coded when initially carcinoma in situ is diagnosed by biopsy and at a later date invasive tumor is found pathologically?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Since carcinoma in situ of the cervix is not reportable to SEER (as of 1/1/1996), the diagnosis date is the date of the invasive diagnosis.

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2003
20031193 Surgery of Primary Site--Lung: Is a core-out of the main bronchus coded in this field? See Description. Patient with right lung cancer was not a surgical candidate because of extent of disease. Prior to receiving radiation, patient underwent bronchoscopy, which revealed obstruction from right main bronchial tumor. Core-out of the tumor was undertaken, and a specimen was sent for path evaluation. The physician stated that this was a palliative procedure to relieve obstruction.

Do not code bronchoscopy to clear the airway as surgery of primary site. When combined with laser therapy, cryosurgery, or other tumor destruction, or when combined with excision of tumor, code as surgery of primary site.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code surgery of primary site for the case described above to 23 [Excision, NOS]. Tissue was excised and sent to pathology.

 2003
20031205 EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined: How are these fields coded when an autopsy report reveals pathologically involved regional lymph nodes but does not state how many nodes were positive nor how many were examined? See Description. A final autopsy report described widely disseminated adenocarcinoma, probably lung primary. Metastatic tumor in brain, lungs, and in lymph nodes. The Gross description of the autopsy report stated that there were numerous metastases to hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes. The Micro description of the autopsy report did not add any clarification. In the absence of a stated number of lymph nodes, the options for coding number of regional lymph nodes examined are codes 96-98. These codes include descriptions of surgical procedures such as sampling and dissection. How do we code number of regional lymph nodes examined when the pathological examination of lymph nodes was done only at autopsy and not during a surgical procedure?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The rules that apply to the use of pathology reports for EOD coding also apply to autopsy reports.

When a cancer diagnosis is made and positive lymph nodes are discovered on autopsy, in the absence of a stated number of lymph nodes, code the number of lymph nodes positive to 97 [Positive nodes but number of positive nodes not specified]. Code the number of lymph nodes examined to 97 [Regional lymph node removal documented as dissection and number of lymph nodes unknown/not stated]. An autopsy is a dissection.

 2003