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: 04/22/2026 12:54 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20091058 MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney: How is histology coded when it is described in the pathology report as "Histologic type: Clear cell (conventional) renal cell carcinoma. Percent of sarcomatoid component: 10%"? See Discussion. MP/H rules for kidney, Table 1 lists both clear cell and sarcomatoid as specific types of renal cell carcinoma. The MP/H terms and definitions for kidney state that clear cell is architecturally diverse. For this case, does the sarcomatoid component represent a subtype of clear cell that has not been assigned an ICD-O code, and thus histology should be coded to 8310? Or does the sarcomatoid component represent a specific type of renal cell carcinoma for which rule H6 would apply? Should histology be coded 8255 for this case? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8310 [clear cell adenocarcinoma] according to rule H5. Renal cell, clear cell and sarcomatoid are mentioned in the diagnosis. Sarcomatoid is referred to as a component. Component is not one of the terms listed in rule H5 that indicate a more specific type. Ignore sarcomatoid in this case. Use table 1 to identify clear cell as a specific renal cell type. Code the specific type (clear cell) according to rule H5. 2009
20091052 Multiple Primaries--Lymphoma: How many primaries should be reported when a left tonsil biopsy is diagnosed with marginal zone lymphoma (9699) and a cervical lymph node biopsy is diagnosed with marginal zone lymphoma and grade 3 follicular lymphoma (9699 and 9698)?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

Abstract two primaries: The first is a marginal zone lymphoma of tonsil and the second is a follicular lymphoma of cervical lymph node. According to the Single versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases (the tri-fold chart), marginal zone lymphoma (9699) and follicular lymphoma (9698) are different primaries.

For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.

 2009
20091062 CS Site Specific Factor--Head & Neck: How is Site Specific Factor 2 coded when the pathologist describes regional lymph nodes as "matted"? See Discussion. The primary tumor is located in the tonsil. The patient underwent neck dissection. Pathology report stated there were matted regional lymph nodes. Does the term matted describe extracapsular extension? The definition for site specific factor 2 uses the term "fixed" to describe extracapsular extension (but not matted). For breast, fixed/matted appear to be interchangeable. Would they also be interchangeable for head and neck cases?

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2."Matted" is not a synonym for "Fixed" in the CS schema for Head and Neck. "Matted" is not indicative of extracapsular extension for the Head and Neck schema.

 2009
20091110 MP/H Rules--Bladder: Should an invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder diagnosed in 2004 followed by an in situ urothelial carcinoma of the ureter diagnosed in 2008 be reported as multiple primaries per the three-year guideline in Rule M7 or a single primary per the subsite guideline in Rule M8? See Discussion. Rule M7 states, "Tumors diagnosed more than three (3) years apart are multiple primaries." Should this rule be modified to say, "Bladder tumors diagnosed more than three (3) years apart are multiple primaries"? Does Rule M7 apply to only bladder tumors or does this rule apply to tumors in any of the urinary sites similarly to Rule M8 which states, "Urothelial tumors in two or more of the following sites are a single primary: Renal pelvis (C659) Ureter (C669) Bladder (C670-C679) Urethra/prostatic urethra (C680)"?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M7 pertains to renal pelvis, ureter, bladder and other urinary sites as defined by the topography codes listed in the header of these rules.

An invasive urothelial bladder tumor followed more than three years later by an in situ TCC of the ureter are reported separate primaries. Rule M8 applies when the tumors in these sites are diagnosed within three years of each other.

2009
20091115 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries - - Melanoma: How many primaries are reported when a patient presents with a malignant melanoma (NOS) and a separate lentigo maligna, both on right chest? See Discussion.

MP/H rule M5 states that melanomas with ICD-O-3 histology codes that are different at the third number are multiple primaries. However, the 2007 MP/H fundamentals Webcast session on melanoma rules states that this is not two histologic types. Lentigo maligna is a growth pattern, not a histologic type. Will clarification be included in the next MP/H rules revision?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, two primaries are to be reported for this case. Rule M5 applies because there is a difference in the histology codes at the third digit.

Clarifications regarding histologic types of melanoma will be added to the rules when they are revised.

2009
20091042 Multiple primaries--Hematopoietic, NOS: How many primaries should be coded when a patient has multiple occurrences of plasmacytoma followed by a diagnosis of multiple myeloma? See Discussion.

Example: Patient had a diagnosis on February 2003, plasmacytoma of the sinus; June 2003, plasmacytoma of the alveolar ridge; July 2003, plasmacytoma of the skin; and June 2004, multiple myeloma.

If this represents a transformation of plasmacytomas to multiple myeloma, will the information on multiple myeloma be available for statistical and research purposes?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Accession this case as plasmacytoma diagnosed in Feb. 2003. Each of the subsequent diagnoses are not abstracted as new primaries. They are the "same," one primary only, according to the Definition of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies (the tri-fold heme table).

The 2003 diagnosis is a classic example of extraosseous plasmacytoma (9734/3).

Plasmacytoma and multiple myeloma would be two primaries in the new hematopoietic rules taking effect in 2010.

For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.

 2009
20091007 CS Extension--Lung: How is this field coded for a tumor in the right middle lobe with extension to the bronchus intermedius?

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.

Assign CS extension code 20

[Extension from other parts of lung to main stem bronchus, NOS

(EXCLUDES superficial tumor as described in code 11)

Tumor involving main stem bronchus greater than or equal to 2.0 cm from carina (primary in lung or main stem bronchus)].

A right middle lobe tumor that extends to the bronchus intermedius is one that is extending to the main stem bronchus from another part of the lung. The bronchus intermedius is the lower part of the main stem bronchus on the right. It is more than 2.0 cm away from the carina.

 2009
20091043

Multiple primaries--Lymphoma: Should a second primary lymphoma be accessioned if the reporting hospital disagrees with the final diagnosis stated on a review of slides? See Discussion.

Example: Patient had an original diagnosis of small lymphocytic lymphoma (9670/3) of lung in 1986 and later presents with small B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (9670/3) of small bowel in 2008 at Hospital A. Slides sent for review at Hospital B where patient was also seen. Slides there read as low grade B-cell lymphoma most consistent with extranodal marginal B-cell lymphoma of mucosal associated tissue (MALT Lymphoma). Hospital A's pathology report stated that immunostains would exclude mantle cell lymphoma and MALT lymphoma and the original pathology report has not been amended to match the outside path diagnosis. Is this a second primary of MALT lymphoma (9699)?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:The 2008 diagnosis is not a new primary according to the Definitions of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies (the tri-fold heme table) using the pathology report diagnosis from the facility where the procedure was performed (Hospital A). Since Hospital A disagreed with the slide review and did not amend their diagnosis based on the slide review, do not use the slide review diagnosis in this case.

For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.

 2009
20091013

Reportability--Skin: Is a "basal cell carcinoma of the skin of the lip with focal skin appendage differentiation" reportable?

The histology code for basal cell carcinoma with skin appendage differentiation is 8098/3. Basal cell carcinomas (8090-8110) are not reportable to SEER. Skin appendage tumors are not reportable to SEER unless stated to be carcinoma or stated to be malignant.

According to our pathologist consultant, basal cell carcinoma with focal skin appendage differentiation is basal cell carcinoma which exhibits adnexal (appendage) features, but it is still basal cell carcinoma.

The case example above is not reportable to SEER.

 2009
20091117 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology to be coded for a breast primary described as "tubular carcinoma (well differentiated invasive ductal carcinoma)"? See Discussion.

How are terms that are modified by parentheses to be interpreted? Do terms in parentheses modify the stated diagnosis and thus have priority over the stated diagnosis? Or would rule H17 apply and histology would be coded as duct and other carcinoma? For this case, the wording of the diagnosis and use of parentheses seem to indicate that tubular is a type of ductal carcinoma. Tubular is not listed as a specific duct carcinoma in the MP/H rules histology tables for breast.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology as tubular carcinoma [8211/3]. This is not a case of tubular AND infiltrating duct. The histology is stated to be tubular. Tubular is not a specific type of duct carcinoma. 2009