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: 09/16/2025 04:29 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20170036

Grade--Prostate: How are the prostate-related fields completed when documentation in pathology reports only includes one of the new grade groups? See Discussion.

Our pathologists have starting to use a new prostate cancer grading system that was adopted by WHO in 2016. The new grading scheme correlates with the prior Gleason grading scheme as follows:

Grade Group 1 = Gleason score 6 or less

Grade Group 2 = Gleason score 3+4=7

Grade Group 3 = Gleason score 4+3 = 7

Grade Group 4 = Gleason score 8

Grade Group 5 = Gleason score 9-10

Our pathologists are no longer dictating the Gleason Primary and Secondary Pattern values nor the Gleason's Score. Reverse correlation from the new grade groups to the required patterns and score are difficult with Grade Groups 2 and 3 needing to be distinguished from one another and Grade Group 5 including two unique scores.

The prostate-related fields include:

Collaborative Site Specific Factor 7: Gleason's Primary Pattern and Secondary Pattern Values on Needle Core Biopsy/TURP

Collaborative Site Specific Factor 8: Gleason's Score On Needle Core Biopsy/TURP

Collaborative Site Specific Factor 9: Gleason's Primary Pattern and Secondary Pattern Values on Prostatectomy/Autopsy

Collaborative Site Specific Factor 10: Gleason's Score on Prostatectomy/Autopsy

When all you have is the grade group, you may use the following table to convert the Prostate Grade Groups to the appropriate code for the indicated fields.

Grade Group Gleason Score Gleason Pattern SSF7 SSF8 SSF9 SSF10 Grade/diff

Grade Group 1 6 or less <=3+3 099 999 099 999 1

Grade Group 2 7 3+4 034 007 034 007 2

Grade Group 3 7 4+3 043 007 043 007 2

Grade Group 4 8 4+4, 3+5, 5+3 999 999 999 999 3

Grade Group 5 9-10 4+5, 5+4, 5+5 099 999 099 999 3

 2017
20170020

Size of tumor--Breast: Please clarify guideline #7 if the only size you have is from a CORE biopsy specimen and imaging only states nonspecific sizes, like "architectural distortion" or "calcifications" and a core biopsy pathology reports invasive tumor spans 5mm. Do you use the core biopsy size, or use 999 for clinical tumor size? See discussion.

SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2016 states: Record size in specified order using a. The largest measurement of the primary tumor from physical exam, imaging, or other diagnostic procedures before any form of treatment. See Coding Instructions 7-9 below. b. The largest size from all information available within four months of the date of diagnosis, in the absence of disease progression when no treatment is administered. #7 Priority of imaging/radiographic techniques: Information on size from imaging/radiographic techniques can be used to code clinical size when there is no more specific size information from a biopsy or operative (surgical exploration) report. It should be taken as a lower priority, but over a physical exam.

Do not code size of tumor based on the size of the core biopsy. If the statement "invasive tumor spans 5mm" from the core biopsy report represents the surgeon's assessment of tumor size, use this information to code tumor size when no other information is available.

 2017
20170030

Surgery Primary Site--Melanoma: How should Surgery of Primary Site be coded for a melanoma diagnosed on punch or shave biopsy followed by a wide excision that shows no residual disease and the gross wide excision specimen size showing no residual is greater than 1 cm in all dimensions (length, width and depth)? See Discussion.

Discussion: Example: Shave biopsy with superficial spreading melanoma, Breslow 0.25 mm, Clark level II. Excision with no residual melanoma and gross description of specimen size is 4.0 x 1.6 cm skin ellipse excised to a depth of 1.8 cm.

We have differing opinions in our registry.

Opinion 1: We can assume margins are greater than 1 cm based on the excision specimen size when there is no residual tumor on excision and all dimensions of the excision specimen are more than 1 cm. Surgery would be coded in 40s range.

Opinion 2: We should assume the melanoma defect was in the middle of the excision specimen, so for a skin ellipse that is 4.0 x 1.6 cm, there would be a 2 cm and 0.8 cm margin (respectively) from the middle of the specimen, thus margins are not > 1 cm. Surgery would be coded in 30s range.

Assign code 30: Biopsy of primary tumor followed by a gross excision of the lesion. The margins are unknown. The registrar should not try to determine the margins when they are not specified. See the SEER Note at the top of page 2 in the Skin Surgery Codes section of Appendix C of the SEER manual "If it is stated to be a wide excision or reexcision, but the margins are unknown, code to 30." https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2016/AppendixC/Surgery_Codes_Skin_2016.pdf

 2017
20170078

Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery--Lung: How do you code Regional Nodes Positive, Regional Nodes Examined, and Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery when a fine needle aspirate (FNA) or biopsy of supraclavicular lymph nodes is positive for a lung cancer primary? Supraclavicular lymph nodes are distant in SEER Summary Stage and regional by AJCC. See Discussion.

There is a discrepancy in regional lymph nodes for lung between SEER and AJCC. Supraclavicular lymph nodes/cervical lymph nodes are distant for SEER but regional for AJCC. For SEER states, when there is an FNA or biopsy of a supraclavicular lymph node performed and it is positive for a lung primary and no other lymph nodes are examined, do you code 95 in Regional Nodes Positive/Regional Nodes Examined and code "1" for Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery or do you not count the FNA/biopsy of the supraclavicular lymph node since it is distant?

For cases diagnosed through 2017, use the Collaborative Staging (CS) system to determine regional versus distant lymph nodes. Supraclavicular lymph nodes are regional for lung in CS.

Please note that Summary Stage is not the same as EOD, CS, or AJCC staging. Registrars should not use Summary Stage definitions for anything other than directly assigning the Summary Stage field.

 2017
20170004

MP/H Ruels/Histology--Kidney/renal pelvis: How is MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with Xp11 translocation coded? See Discussion.

Pathology states: Translocation renal cell carcinoma. Comment Tumor morphology and IHC profile consistent with MiT family translocation RCC with Xp11 translocation.

Assign 8312/3 to MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with Xp11 translocation.

The recent WHO 4th Ed Tumors of the Urinary System has proposed a new ICD-O-3 code for MiT family translocation RCC, however the implementation of this new code has not yet been approved by the standard setters (SEER, CoC, CDC, NAACCR). Until it is approved, code histology to renal cell carcinoma (8312/3).

 2017
20170009

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries should be accessioned if patient has a LUL lung biopsy with squamous cell carcinoma and subsequently a station 4L node biopsy with small cell carcinoma? See Discussion.

Patient has only a LUL tumor on imaging. The tumor board initially states, possibly a mixed tumor, likely IIIA SCC and/or IIIA or B small cell. Later, the physician refers to it as "Stage III lung cancer, mixed histology with small cell in the lymph node and squamous cell in the LUL mass." Patient has no further workup and has declined therapy.

Accession the case as a single lung primary since there is only a mixed tumor noted by the tumor board. Code the histology as 8045, combination/mixed small cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, per Table 1 of the Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules.

 2017
20170043

Reportability--Ovary: Is ovarian mucinous borderline tumor of intestinal type with microinvasion reportable? If reportable, what is the histology? See Discussion.

4/18/17 Right ovary and fallopian tube, salpingo-oophorectomy: mucinous borderline tumor of intestinal type with microinvasion; greatest dimension 24.5 cm. Left fallopian tube and ovary, salpingo-oophorectomy: Benign ovary with multiple benign Mullerian inclusions. Benign fallopian tube with multiple paratubal cysts. Per pathology: pT1a pNx.

For an ovarian mucinous borderline tumor, the term "microinvasion" is not an indication of malignancy according to the WHO classification of tumors, and our expert pathologist consultant agrees. Therefore, borderline mucinous ovarian tumor with microinvasion is not reportable. Low malignant potential/borderline ovarian tumors are defined by the pathology of the primary tumor in the ovary, and microinvasion there, or invasion in implants does not change that diagnosis. The only exception is when the lymph nodes are positive for malignancy, the case is reportable. If the lymph nodes are positive for mucinous borderline tumor, the case is not reportable.

 2017
20170060

MP/H Rules/Histology/Grade--Unknown & ill-defined sites: What is the correct histology and grade of a liver biopsy with metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma low to intermediate grade if primary site is unknown? See Discussion.

CT-guided liver biopsy, diagnosis: Metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma. Diagnosis Comment: Cytology of the tumor appears to be low to intermediate grade.

Would this case be coded as an atypical carcinoid tumor (8249/3) based on SINQ 20170033 and the statement of intermediate grade; or should this be 8240/3 (neuroendocrine tumor) per SINQ 20160023 because it is a metastatic site? More clarification is needed on when to code 8249/3 or 8240/3 for a neuroendocrine carcinoma or neoplasm seen in a metastatic specimen only when there is specified grade.

Assign histology code 8246/3 and assign code 9 for grade.

Since the primary is unknown and the type of NEC is not definitively stated, code neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS based on the diagnosis.

Code grade from primary tumor only. Assign grade code 9 when the primary site is unknown. See instruction 2.b. in the Grade Coding Instructions for 2014+.

SINQ 20170033 and SINQ 20160023 provide instructions for coding the grade/differentiation field. Using these SINQ questions to code histology could lead to errors.

 2017
20170024

Reportability/Histology--Colon: Is tubular adenoma with high grade dysplasia and focal invasion from a pathology report of a colon biopsy reportable?; if so, what is the histology code?

Tubular adenoma with high grade dysplasia and focal invasion is reportable. Assign the histology code and behavior as 8210/3 (Adenocarcinoma in tubular adenoma).

NAACCR Guidelines for ICD-O-3 Implementation discuss the term high grade dysplasia (without invasion). High grade dysplasia and related terms are under review and study for consideration as a reportable neoplasm. Registries should check with their state reporting legislation to see if included in the reporting requirements.

 2017
20170044

Histology--Sarcoma: What is the histology code for epithelioid angiosarcoma?

Assign 9120/3 for epithelioid angiosarcoma.

 2017