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 18:32 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20160023

Grade/Histology--Digestive System: What is the grade for neuroendocrine tumor (NET) or neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) of gastrointestinal morphologies described as: 1) NET G1 (M8240/3) and NET G2 (M8249/3) or 2) neuroendocrine carcinoma, low grade (M8240/3) and neuroendocrine carcinoma, well differentiation (M8240/3) and neuroendocrine carcinoma, moderate differentiation (M8249/3)? The SEER Instructions for Coding Grade for 2014+, Coding for Solid Tumors section, #3 state: Code the grade shown below (6th digit) for specific histologic terms that imply a grade. NET and NEC are not included in the specific terms.

You may code grade as follows.

Grade 1 – NET G1 (M8240/3)

Grade 2 – NET G2 (M8249/3)

Grade 1 – neuroendocrine carcinoma, low grade (M8240/3) or neuroendocrine carcinoma, well differentiation (M8240/3)

Grade 2 – neuroendocrine carcinoma, moderate differentiation (M8249/3)

2016
20160068

Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are sphenoid wing meningiomas reportable? See discussion.

It's my understanding that true intraosseous meningiomas are very rare. It's also my understanding that cranial meninges DO cover the sphenoid wing, so I'm wondering if it's possible to have a meningioma of the sphenoid wing on imaging that arises from the meninges NOT the bone. Is that the deciding factor on reportability? It's been suggested to me that meninges cells do lie within the bone, but again if a meningioma is described as being located at the sphenoid wing on imaging, without bone involvement - and no surgery is performed - I do not understand why it is specifically excluded as non-reportable.

This answer pertains to cases diagnosed prior to 2018. For 2018 and later cases, refer to the Non-Malignant CNS Solid Tumor Rules.

Note: This answer updates previous answers which have been removed from the SEER Inquiry System.

Intraosseous meningiomas are not reportable. You are correct, these are rare meningiomas originating in bone. The term "sphenoid wing meningioma" is sometimes used for an intraosseous meningioma of the sphenoid bone. Yes, it's possible to have a meningioma of the sphenoid wing on imaging that arises from the meninges NOT the bone. Read the available information carefully. When the site of origin is described as "along the sphenoid wing" or "overlying the sphenoid wing" report the meningioma. These descriptions indicate that the meningioma originates from the meninges covering bone rather than the bone itself. Meningioma arising in bone is rare enough, that when present, we would expect it to be clearly stated as such. In the absence of a statement indicating origin in bone, the meningioma is most likely arising from meninges covering the bone.

 2016
20160062

Grade--Kidney: Should WHO/ISUP grade for renal cell carcinoma be coded for cases diagnosed 2016 and later? See discussion.

 

The 2016 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System appears to be moving away from using Fuhrman grading toward using WHO/ISUP grade. These seem like similar 4 grade staging systems; however, the SEER Manual specifically states to not use the Special Grade System table for WHO/ISUP. We are seeing the WHO/ISUP grade being used on 2016 pathology reports.

Examples of new grading for renal cell carcinomas

Histologic type: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Histologic grade (WHO/ISUP 2016): Grade 3 in a background of 2 (of 4).

And

Histologic type: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Histologic grade (ISUP): Grade 2.

Do not record WHO/ISUP grade in the grade/differentiation field.

Designated fields for this grade system are being proposed for future implementation.

2016
20160041

First course treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Skin: How are Surgery of Primary Site and Surgical Procedure of Other Site coded for an eyelid skin primary diagnosed by punch biopsy and treated with an orbital exenteration? See Discussion.

Unlike most other sites, there is no specific code for a radical surgical procedure of a skin primary. In this case, the patient was diagnosed with a sebaceous cell carcinoma of the lower eyelid skin by punch biopsy. The tumor was large and an orbital exenteration was planned. Despite the extensive surgery performed, skin margins were less than 1 cm. Is an orbital exenteration a "major amputation" (code 60) in this case? Given that the margins were not greater than 1 cm, codes 45 - 47 (which includes a minor (local) amputation) don't seem to apply. However, if this procedure cannot be classified as "minor amputation" then doesn't it seem overkill to refer to the procedure as a "major amputation"?

An alternative would be to code Surgery of Primary Site to 32 for the skin resection (punch biopsy followed by a gross excision of the lesion, margins less than 1 cm) and code Surgical Procedure of Other Site to 2 (non-primary surgical procedure to other regional sites) to record the removal of the globe and orbit as part of the orbital exenteration. Which is correct?

There is a similar question in the FORDS forum of the CoC CAnswer Forum. CoC is the curator for the surgery codes.

Surgical Procedure to Primary Site - Gross excision of the lesion, code in 30s series

Surgical Procedure to Other Site (removal of eye) - code 4

http://cancerbulletin.facs.org/forums/forum/fords-national-cancer-data-base/fords/first-course-of-treatment/surgery/56355-sebaceous-carcinoma-of-the-eyelid-primary-surgery-code

 

2016
20160067

MP/H Rules/Histology--Skin: What histology code and MP/H Rule apply to a skin primary with the final diagnosis, ? See Discussion.

The patient had an upper arm shave biopsy with final diagnosis of basaloid carcinoma with squamous and neuroendocrine differentiation. The pathologist also comments: Further resection was negative for residual malignancy.

Would SINQ 20150033 apply, thus resulting in final histology of carcinoma with neuroendocrine carcinoma (8574/3)?

Assign 8574/3 according to Other Sites rule H17 for basaloid carcinoma with squamous and neuroendocrine differentiation.

There is no combination code that includes basal cell, squamous, and neuroendocrine. We can combine basal cell with squamous, 8094/3, or carcinoma with neuoendocrine differentiation, 8574/3. Rule H17 directs us to assign the higher code, 8574/3.

2016
20160075

MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What histology code(s) and MP/H rule applies for a breast resection final diagnosis of "undifferentiated sarcoma associated with a malignant phyllodes tumor and a tumor size of approximately 7 x 6.5 x 4 cm"? (The tumor is primarily sarcoma, with the phyllodes tumor measuring 2.8 cm)? See Discussion.

Patient has a diagnosis of undifferentiated sarcoma with an associated malignant phyllodes tumor in a single mass. Should this be abstracted as two primaries, one for an undifferentiated sarcoma and the other for a malignant phyllodes tumor? Which MP/H rule applies?

Abstract a single primary. Based on the information provided, this is a single tumor, and therefore a single primary, Rule M3. Code the histology to malignant phyllodes tumor.

According to our expert pathologist consultant, "The presence of a phyllodes tumor component identifies the whole thing as such. Stromal overgrowth/sarcoma is the usual identifier of malignancy in a phyllodes tumor. (If there were no phyllodes component we would be left with undifferentiated sarcoma, but that is not the case here. The diagnosis of malignancy in phyllodes tumor may be difficult/problematic when there is no overt stromal/sarcoma overgrowth as in this case.) As an aside, the behaviors of pure sarcoma and a phyllodes tumor such as we have here are similar, but we would lose the primary diagnosis if we just called this sarcoma."

 2016
20160050

Reportability--Appendix: Is a mucinous cystic neoplasm with high grade dysplasia of the appendix reportable? See discussion.

The language appears similar to the mucinous cystic neoplasm of the pancreas with high grade dysplasia (8470/2), which was clarified to be reportable in 2014.

WHO does not list MCN as a histology for the appendix. This case should be clarified with the pathologist.

For pancreas specifically, the term "mucinous cystic neoplasm (MCN) with high grade dysplasia" replaced the term "mucinous cystadenocarcinoma, noninvasive" according to WHO. MCN with high grade dysplasia of the pancreas is reportable because it is used in place of the now obsolete terminology. If we did not make the new terminology reportable, trends over time could be affected.

 

2016
20160051

Diagnostic confirmation: When a CT guided Fine Needle Aspiration is performed and the pathology report indicates smears and cell block were prepared, if the diagnosis is positive for cancer, can you code diagnostic confirmation as 2 (positive cytology) because of the cell block?

Yes, assign diagnostic confirmation code 2 for diagnosis based on smears and cell block from CT guided FNA. This reply pertains to solid tumors.

2016
20160047

Reportability--Eye: Is conjunctival intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN III) from an excision of the left eye conjunctiva reportable?

Conjuctival intraepithelial neoplasia grade III (CIN III) is reportable. Intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III, is listed in ICD-O-3 as /2. It is reportable for sites other than skin.

2016
20160039

First course treatment/Surgery of Primary Site: If a procedure stated to be an "excisional biopsy" doesn't grossly remove the tumor, should Surgery of Primary Site be coded as an excisional biopsy? See Discussion for example.

Would you code an excisional biopsy as Surgery for the following case?

The patient presented with a large protruding polypoid anal canal mass. The diagnosis of malignancy was made following a procedure referred to by the surgeon as an excisional biopsy. The protruding portion of the anal canal mass was excised, but the deep margin was grossly involved. The PE exam after the "excisional biopsy" found a firm mass, 4 cm in length on DRE. Further work-up with imaging showed gross residual disease extending to adjacent skeletal muscle (external anal sphincter). Although the internal/protruding anal canal portion of the tumor was excised, there was clearly extensive residual tumor. The patient underwent definitive concurrent chemoradiation only; subsequent surgery was not planned or performed.

Do not record this excisional biopsy as surgery because there was residual macroscopic tumor. See Note 1 under #4 on page 130 in the SEER manual,  http://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2015/SPCSM_2015_maindoc.pdf

2016