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: 02/23/2026 22:51 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20110038

Reportability/Behavior: Is a "minimally invasive thymoma" a reportable malignancy if the pathology report does not specifically state it is malignant? See Discussion.

For example, are Types A, B1, B2 and B3 reportable if the pathology report does not state the tumor is a "Malignant Thymoma"?

For cases diagnosed prior to 2021

According to our expert pathologist consultant, code using the terms in the pathology report. Do not try to second guess the pathologist.

  1. Thymomas are /1 and not reportable unless the pathologist states "malignant". This includes A, AB, B1, B2, and B3. Any one of these types of tumors may exhibit invasion but do not code /3 based only on invasion.

  • Code thymoma as /3 if specifically designated "malignant" by the pathologist.

  • Thymic carcinoma and any of its subtypes are malignant, /3.

    		•  2011
    		20110007 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Bladder: How many primaries are to be abstracted and how are the histologies coded when a bladder resection demonstrates tumor with invasive small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma [8041/3], high grade papillary urothelial carcinoma in situ [8130/2], adenocarcinoma in situ [8140/2], and multifocal flat urothelial carcinoma in situ? See Discussion.

    Are the areas of in situ tumor to be ignored or would MP/H Rule M9 apply?

    		Ignore the in situ histologies. This is a single primary. Code the histology to invasive small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma [8041/3]. 2011
    		20110124 MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How is the histology coded for a single tumor of the left lower lobe that is stated to be a sarcomatoid carcinoma with features of carcinosarcoma, spindle cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma and giant cell carcinoma?

    Histology is sarcomatoid carcinoma [8033/3]. This case was sent to the lung physician experts because of the difficulty in trying to apply the current MP/H rules. Their rationale for the coding decision follows:

    "This pathologist has diagnosed a sarcomatoid carcinoma, and then listed all of the subtypes associated with that diagnosis. I would go with the primary diagnosis, sarcomatoid carcinoma. The inclusion of squamous cell differentiation would exclude spindle cell and giant cell as diagnoses, so the pathologist is using them descriptively. We have no basis for picking one of the subtypes and sarcomatoid carcinoma covers all of the diagnoses given."

    See the glossary in the Lung Equivalent Terms and Definitions for Sarcomatoid carcinoma: A group of tumors that are non-small cell in type and contain spindle cells and/or giant cells. Depending on the histologic features the tumor may be designated: pleomorphic carcinoma [8022/3]; spindle cell carcinoma [8032/3]; giant cell carcinoma [8031/3], carcinosarcoma [8980/3]; or pulmonary blastoma [8972/3].

    		2011
    		20110091 MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: How is this field coded for a patient with ureter specimen with "high grade urothelial carcinoma with adenocarcinoma differentiation" and a TURB specimen with "urothelial ca, high grade, a biphasic pattern with cautery-distorted urothelial carcinoma and adenocarcinoma"?

    According to the MP/H rules, code histology to 8120/3 [urothelial carcinoma] for cases diagnosed 2007 or later. The term "glandular differentiation" is equivalent to adenocarcinoma differentiation. 8120/3 [urothelial carcinoma] would be the best way to code a "biphasic pattern with cautery-distorted urothelial carcinoma and adenocarcinoma" according to a pathologist consultant.

    The steps used to arrive at this decision are as follows:

    Go to the Urinary Histo rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual.

    Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS ABSTRACTED AS A SINGLE PRIMARY module, rule H9. Code the histology to 8120 [transitional cell/urothelial carcinoma] when there is transitional cell carcinoma with glandular differentiation.

    		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
    		20110145 MP/H Rules/Recurrence--Skin: If a pathologist does not review the August 2008 slides, how many primaries are accessioned for a patient diagnosed and treated for a dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans of the left upper inner arm in August 2008 who subsequently had a "recurrence" noted in October 2010 located in the scar of the original primary?

    Abstract as a single primary: dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans [8832/3] of the left upper inner arm [C446] diagnosed in August 2008.

    The rationale for this answer was provided by subject matter experts. The physician specialists for soft tissue and bone replied as follows:

    Low-grade sarcomas tend to recur locally. Because this tumor recurred in same area, i.e. scar of prior surgery, and recurred in this period of time, this is a local recurrence. Dermatofibrosarcoma Protuberans is a low grade tumor which can recur many years following tumor excision.

    		2011
    		20110123

    Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Are the terms EBV positive B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder with or without the term "of the elderly" and iatrogenic EBV positive lymphoproliferative disorder reportable? See Discussion.

    The only reportable term listed is "EBV positive B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder of the elderly." Are the following cases reportable?

    • Does the diagnosis of EBV positive B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder specifically have to include the expression "of the elderly" to be reportable? Is there an age range associated with the term "of the elderly"?
    • Is "iatrogenic EBV positive lymphoproliferative disorder" reportable?
    • Is a diagnosis of "EBV positive B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder" reportable when there is no further classification of the LPD as lymphoma?

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

    1. EBV positive B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder is reportable. Code EBV positive lymphoproliferative disorder as DLBCL [9680/3], the term "of the elderly" does not have to be part of the diagnosis.
    • The term "iatrogenic" simply means that there is no known cause for the disease. Iatrogenic EBV positive lymphoproliferative disorder is reportable.
    • EBV positive B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder is a synonym for DLBCL [9680/3]. You do not need to have the lymphoma (DLBCL) diagnosis.

    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
    		20110015 Primary site/Histology: Do the 4/1/09 changes in the ICD-O-3 Site/Type Validation table regarding the coding of primary site for intestinal type adenocarcinoma mean that the former valid site/histology combinations are now impossible and require review from a given diagnosis date forward? See Discussion.

    Per the SEER Errata for ICD-O-3 Site/Type Validation List, April 1, 2009, adenocarcinoma, intestinal type, was removed as a valid site/histology combination for the following primary sites: C150-C155, C158-C159, C170-C173, C178-C179, C180-C189, C199, C209, C210-C212, C218.

  • Does this mean that these combinations cannot be used? If so, then why is an override allowed for these site/type combinations? Shouldn't these site/type combinations be added to the impossible site/type combinations table?

  • SINQ 20081085 states that "8144/3 will be removed from the valid site/histology list for large intestine, small intestine, and rectum." It appears from the Site/Type Validation table that a decision was made to also remove esophagus sites as a valid combination with histology code of 8144. Please explain the rationale.

  • Cases that were miscoded to 8144/3 will need to be identified for correction. What date of diagnosis should be the reference point used in making the necessary corrections related to this change? Do we only need to review cases diagnosed 1/1/2009 forward or should all cases be corrected regardless of date of diagnosis?

    • The site/type edit identifies unlikely combinations of primary site and histologic type.

  • Intestinal type adenocarcinoma occurs in the stomach. It would be rare in another primary site, but not impossible.

  • It was decided that all digestive organ sites, except stomach, would be removed from the list. That is why esophagus is not listed as a valid site.

  • The site/type edit is for all years. Cases for all years have to be reviewed for combinations of site and type that are no longer on the list. If it is documented in the medical record that the primary site and histology combination are valid, set the over-ride flag so that the case will not come up for review again.

    		• 2011
    		20110116

    MP/H/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code for "heterologous biphasic sarcomatoid carcinoma of the lung with prominent rhabdomyoblastic and adenoca differentiation"?

    The expert pathologist recommends coding histology to 8980/3 [Carcinosarcoma] for this combination histology.

    Expert consultation: The designation "carcinosarcoma" is given when the pathology shows differentiation in both the sarcomatous (rhabdomyoblastic) and carcinomatous (adenoca) elements. This is emphasized in the path for this case with the term "biphasic." The term "heterologous" mean that the sarcomatous component is of a type not normal to lung. Rhabdomyoblastic means skeletal muscle differentiation. Because skeletal muscle is not normally found in lung it is heterologous. If it were smooth muscle, it would be homologous because smooth muscle is found in lung (as a part of the bronchi).

    		 2011