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: 02/21/2026 01:23 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20110012 Reportability--Sarcoma: Is "atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma" reportable? See Discussion.

The final diagnosis for a soft tissue excision is, "atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma". The Comment section states, "Atypical lipomatous tumor/well differentiated liposarcoma has a significant risk for local recurrence, but no metastatic potential."

Per the 2010 SEER Manual, page 3, example 4: The pathologist makes the final decision about the behavior for a particular case. In this case, the pathologist uses both a reportable and a non-reportable term in the final diagnosis and in the comment section of the pathology report. Does the pathologist's comment impact the behavior and reportability of this tumor?

 For cases diagnosed 1/1/2014 and later: Atypical lipomatous tumor (8850/1) is not reportable. If the pathologist uses the term "well-differentiated liposarcoma" (8851/3) report the case. Use of this terminology indicates a less favorable prognosis. 2011
20110132 Reportability/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a diagnosis of "small B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoproliferative disorder" reportable? If so, how is the histology to be coded? See Discussion. The final diagnosis of a bone marrow biopsy dated 10/99/2010 was "small B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoproliferative disorder." The differential diagnosis includes atypical small lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukemia and marginal zone lymphoma. Mantle cell lymphoma is very unlikely based on BCL1 negativity. Lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma is also excluded due to the absence of a plasma cell component (CD138 negative).

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

Yes. The term "small B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoproliferative disorder" is reportable. Code the histology to 9591/3 [non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS] per Rule PH28. When there is a diagnosis of lymphoproliferative disorder and any lymphoma, code the lymphoma histology.

The information in the discussion is reflective of the difficulty in diagnosing hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. The differential diagnosis indicates that a number of possible specific lymphoma/leukemia diagnoses that have been ruled out, which explains why the final diagnosis is non-Hodgkin, NOS.

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
20110079 MP/H Rules/Histology: In the MP/H Manual, where is the documentation indicating "focal" is not a term that can be used to code histology? See Discussion. Example: neuroendocrine carcinoma with focal squamous differentiation. For the purposes of the MP/H rules, the term "focal" is not used to indicate a more specific histology. Terms that may be used to indicate a more specific histology are listed in the relevant histology rules. For example, see Breast histology rule H3. Notice the terms listed in the note for this rule are "type, subtype, predominantly, with features of, major, with ___ differentiation, architecture or pattern." The term "focal" is not included. This concept will be clarified in future revisions to MP/H rules. 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
20110056 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the primary site for a post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) diagnosed on a brain biopsy? See Discussion. A patient was diagnosed in 6/2010 with PTLD by a brain biopsy. PTLD typically involves lymph nodes. Can the primary site for PTLD be coded to the brain?

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

Per Rule PH30, use the Heme DB to determine the primary site and histology when PH1-PH29 do not apply. Per the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB, PTLD commonly involves lymph nodes, GI tract, lungs, and liver. Although CNS involvement is rare, in solid organ recipients the CNS may be the only site of involvement or may be associated with multi-organ involvement. Code the primary site to C719 [brain, NOS] and the histology to 9971/3 [post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD)]

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
20110141

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should a 2010 diagnosis of central nervous system diffuse large B-cell lymphoma be abstracted as a new primary when the patient has a history of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma in the 1980's and a 1991 history of DLBCL of the bowel (NOS)? See Discussion.

Patient presents in 2010 with the history of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma and DLBCL. The patient is stated to have been in remission from the DLBCL. However, a current CT scan of the brain is consistent with central nervous system DLBCL. Cerebrospinal fluid cytology is consistent with DLBCL. The CT scan of the torso showed no lymphadenopathy or suspicious findings.

Does the recently discovered DLBCL disease process in the central nervous system represent a new third primary? Or is this disease recurrence/progression? The patient was referred to a cancer center and there is no additional information available regarding further workup or treatment.

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

The patient only has two primaries: cutaneous T-cell lymphoma diagnosed in the 1980s and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma of the bowel diagnosed in 1991.

The DLBCL of the brain does not represent a new primary. It is progression of the 1991 disease process with the same histology. Under the Alternate Names section in the Heme DB, one synonym for DLBCL is "Primary DLBCL of the CNS." The histology code for both the 1991 bowel neoplasm and the current CNS neoplasm is 9680/3. Per Rule M2, a single histology is a single primary.

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
20110057

MP/H Rules/Behavior--Appendix: How do you code mucinous cancers of the appendix? Is a "low grade mucinous appendix tumor/neoplasm" with peritoneal spread reportable? See Discussion.

Low grade mucinous neoplasms can spread to the peritoneal cavity and in that sense are metastatic but histologically have bland/benign features (may be a benign cystadenoma that ruptured and spread by rupturing) are not a carcinoma. Thus, some have termed this group as DPAM (diseminated peritoneal adenomucinous) and not a true carcinoma. Others indicate that if you have metastasis the tumor is a carcinoma.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, low-grade mucinous tumors of the appendix are a /1, borderline/uncertain behavior, and not reportable. These tumors do spread to the peritoneal cavity (pseudomyxoma peritonei). This spread, or deposits, or implants are also borderline/uncertain behavior and do not make the appendiceal tumor reportable. By contrast, a high-grade mucinous tumor of the appendix may produce malignant/invasive pseudomyxoma peritonei. When the pseudomyxoma peritonei are diagnosed as invasive or malignant, the mucinous tumor in the appendix is reportable as a /3.

 2011
20110008 MP/H Rules/Histology--Vulva: How is histology coded for VIN III with focal invasion? See Discussion. Per SINQ 20000442, the histology for CIN III with microinvasion is coded to 8077 [squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III] per the matrix system rules, with a behavior code of /3 [malignant]. Coding the histology to 8077/3 per the matrix principle causes IF25_3 and MorphICDO3_P1 edits to fail. Flagging the first error resolves any reporting issue. How is the MorphICDO3_P1 edit resolved? Assign 8076/3 [squamous cell carcinoma, microinvasive] for VIN III with focal invasion. This applies to all terminologies listed under 8077/2. The SINQ question from 2000 will be retired. 2011
20110142

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is the pathologic final diagnosis of "follicular lymphoma, WHO grade 1-2, findings may represent in situ follicular lymphoma" reportable if the clinician also states this may be an "in situ follicular lymphoma"? See Discussion.

2/16/11 mesentery biopsy showed "follicular lymphoma, WHO grade 1-2, findings may represent an "in situ" follicular lymphoma."

3/7/11 clinician note stated, "nodularity of the mesentery which upon biopsy may be in situ follicular lymphoma. No treatment is necessary. This is not a proven malignancy. It may evolve into one. Plan 6 month follow-up and CT scans.

Do the notes from the oncologist and pathologist stating that this "may be" or "may represent" an in situ lymphoma make this case non-reportable?

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

This case should not be accessioned. In situ lymphoma is not reportable for any of the standard setters (CoC, NPCR, or SEER). In the Case Reportability Instructions, the NOTE under Rule 3 states, "Do report in situ (/2) lymphomas."

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
20110131 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Does a change in the 2008 diagnosis from refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB I) to a subsequent diagnosis of RAEB II in 2011 need to be reported to the state if the Hematopoietic Database indicates these diagnoses represent the same primary?

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

RAEB I and RAEB II [9983/3] have the same histology code per the Heme DB. They are synonyms. Per Rule M2 one abstracts a single primary when there is a single histology. There is no change to report to the state regarding histology.

The I and II designators indicate the number of blasts in the bone marrow. In RAEB, the number of blasts measures the severity of the disease and is also a predictor of the chance of a genetic transformation to AML.

In this case, the patient's disease has progressed to a more severe phase - similar to a solid tumor progressing from Stage II to Stage III.

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