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: 02/18/2026 12:59 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20100008 Primary site--Bladder/Unknown & ill-defined sites: Should the coding of primary site be based on a molecular study when it is not verified by a clinical correlation? See Discussion.

Patient was seen in 2009 at Hospital A for bone pain and was found to have metastatic adenocarcinoma. A paraffin block specimen was sent to BioThernostics for THEROS CancerTYPE ID Molecular Cancer Classification Tests. The results came back with a 94% likelihood that the urinary bladder was the primary site. No scans were done on the abdomen or pelvis.

The patient was then sent to Hospital B for radiation to the bones and chemotherapy (Carboplatin and Taxol). The patient died within 6 months.

According to Hospital A, the primary site is bladder based on the molecular study report. Hospital B says this is an unknown primary. Which is correct? Do we take primary site from these tests, even when no clinical correlation is documented?

 Code primary site to bladder in this case. Code the known primary site when given the choice between a known primary site and an unknown primary site. 2010
20100059 Surgery of Primary Site--Brain and CNS: How should this field be coded when the procedure is stated to be a "stereotactic CORE biopsy" of a brain tumor? See Discussion.

The most recent version of the Brain Site Specific Surgery schema has a note that states "Assign code 20 [Local excision of tumor, lesion, or mass, excisional biopsy] for stereotactic biopsy of brain tumor." Does this also apply to a stereotactic CORE biopsy?

SINQ 20081118 also states that a stereotactic biopsy should be coded as Surgery of Primary Site code 20.

 Assign code 20 [Local excision of tumor, lesion, or mass, excisional biopsy] for a stereotactic core biopsy of brain tumor. 2010
20100066 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be accessioned if two tumors are present in the same breast, a 1.7 cm colloid carcinoma and a 1.5 cm colloid carcinoma with infiltrating ductal carcinoma? See Discussion.

If a patient has two masses in the same breast with different histology codes and different sizes, should this be accessioned as two primaries? Or should this be a single primary based on the largest tumor size or numerically higher histology code?

  1. Size 1.7 cm for the largest tumor size, but histology is colloid carcinoma. Histology code: 8480/3.

  • Size: 1.5 cm with colloid with infiltrating ductal carcinoma. Histology code 8523/3.

    		•

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract this case as two primaries.

    Mucinous/colloid carcinoma of the breast is rare. The first tumor describes (1.7 cm) fits this criteria because the pathologist simply says mucinous carcinoma. The diagnostic criteria for mucinous carcinoma is that pools of extracellular mucin make up at least 1/3 of the volume throughout the tumor mass. If focal areas are not at least 33% mucinous, the designation is a mixed mucinous/ductal. That fits the second tumor (1.5 cm).

    For this case, you must get the histology codes for both tumors in order to use the Multiple Primary rules. Per H14 the first tumor is coded mucinous carcinoma [8480/3]. Per H17 the second tumor is coded duct carcinoma mixed with any other carcinoma [8523/3]. Now go to the MP rules. Per M12 abstract this case as multiple primaries because the ICD-O-3 histology codes are different at the second and third digit.

    		 2010
    		20100011

    Reportability: Should a benign gangliocytic paraganglioma [8683/0] be a reportable (malignant) tumor based on the presence of lymph node metastases? See Discussion.

    "Resection, periampullary duodenum: Gangliocytic paraganglioma, with metastasis to one large periduodunal lymph node. Six other small lymph nodes negative. COMMENT: The primary tumor in the duodenum is made up mainly endocrine cell component. This component appears to have metastasized to a periduodenal lymph node."

    This neoplasm is reportable because it is malignant as proven by the lymph node metastases. Code the behavior as malignant (/3) when there are lymph node metastases.

    		 2010
    		20100002 Reportability/Histology--Colon: Is a colon tumor reportable if the pathology report final diagnosis is high grade dysplasia but CAP protocol histologic type designation is adenocarcinoma in situ? See Discussion. The microscopic description and the final diagnosis on the pathology report indicate the tumor is a large tubulovillous adenoma of the cecum with focal surface high grade dysplasia. The CAP protocol histologic type designation is adenocarcinoma in situ and pT designation is pTis. Which has priority? Is the case reportable?

    The case is reportable because carcinoma in situ is stated. Carcinoma in situ has higher priority than severe dysplasia or high grade dysplasia.

    Per AJCC 6th edition colon chapter, the terms "high grade dysplasia" or "severe dysplasia" may be synonymous with carcinoma in situ. Because the pathologist gave carcinoma in situ information within the CAP, (s)he is apparently defining the dysplasia as in situ carcinoma.

    		 2010
    		20100108 MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: How is histology coded for a left occipital parietal area tumor stated to be a "low grade neuroectodermal neoplasm most consistent with neuronal tumor but lacking classic features of ganglioma" if the pathologist states the tumor is not malignant? Code 9505/0 [Ganglioglioma, benign] is the best option according to our pathology expert. He states, "There recently has been a spate of tumors called low grade glio-neuronal tumors that are not PNETs and have no propensity to become malignant." 2010
    		20100061 MP/H Rules/Histology: The 2010 SEER Manual has omitted some useful information in the Histologic Type ICD-O-3 section, specifically the statement of "Do not revise or update the histology code based on subsequent recurrence(s)". Will this statement be added to the revisions of the MPH rules? See Discussion. Example: A 2005 diagnosis of left breast lobular carcinoma [8520/3], followed by a 2009 diagnosis of left breast ductal carcinoma [8500/3]. Rule M10 states this is a single primary, but there is no information in the Histology rules (Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary) that the original histology should be retained, thus a person could potentially use these rules to change the original histology to 8522/3 [duct and lobular carcinoma] per rule H28. We will reinstate the instruction not to change the histology code based on recurrence in future versions of the histology coding instructions. However, this instruction may not be applicable to all anatomic sites. It will be reinstated on a site-by-site basis. You may also refer to the instructions on Page 7 of the 2010 SEER Manual under the heading "Changing Information on the Abstract." 2010
    		20100106 Reportability-Bladder: Is a case with a cytology diagnosis, "positive for malignancy, favor low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma" reportable if the diagnosis on a subsequent bladder biopsy showed only "urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential"? See Discussion.

    On 11/23/09 the patient had urine cytology diagnosis "positive for malignancy, favor low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma." On 12/28/09, the bladder biopsy showed "urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential."

    SINQ 20081086 only addresses the example of a positive FNA/biopsy followed by a negative resection. Would the previous decision hold for this case when a positive fine needle aspiration biopsy is followed by only a negative biopsy?

    This case is not reportable. The pathology proved the cytology to be incorrect. The pathologic diagnosis is the "gold standard." When cytology and pathology disagree, use pathology.

    		2010
    		20100041

    Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Are "anemia of chronic disorders" or "hemolytic anemia" reportable given that a search of the Hematopoietic Database returns many different reportable conditions but no exact terminology match for either diagnosis? See Discussion.

    Searching the Heme Database for the term ANEMIA OF CHRONIC DISORDERS yields 71 results. However, none of the results match the terminology entered, yet all 71 "matched terms" are reportable. Is this diagnosis reportable?

    Another example is HEMOLYTIC ANEMIA. The search results showed 28 "matched terms" which are all reportable, but none are exact matches.

    Please clarify how we should interpret the results of these searches when using the Heme Database.

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

    Neither diagnosis is reportable. Anemia of chronic disorder or disease is seen when a patient has a chronic immune disorder or a malignancy; the anemia itself is not a malignancy. Hemolytic anemia can be caused by many conditions, but is not malignant.

    The problem you are having using the Heme DB is that you are searching for the entire term such as "anemia of chronic disorder." The DB search engine is not the same as those used in Google or other widely used internet search engines. The words lymphoma, leukemia, etc. are so common in the DB that the traditional search is not effective.

    In order to make your search easier, search on a unique word. For example, for "anemia of chronic disorder" search on the words (use the quotes) "anemia of" and for the term hemolytic anemia, search on "hemolytic" By using the unique word search you will cut down on the number of terms displayed. If you do get several terms, click on "Name" in the header and all of the results will be alphabetized for quick identification. You may also use the "diseases matching any term" or the "disease match all terms" options to narrow down the results when searching the whole term phrase.

    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.

    		2010
    		20100025

    MP/H Rules/Primary site--Kidney, Renal Pelvis: Should the primary site be changed to C689 [Urinary system, NOS] for a primary renal pelvis tumor after additional tumors are found months later in different urinary sites (e.g., bladder or ureter) and the MP/H Rules indicate these are all the same primary? See Discussion.

    In a patient is diagnosed 1/29/08 with an invasive grade 3 of 3 papillary urothelial cell carcinoma arising in the depth of a calyx in mid portion of kidney, the primary site was coded C659 [Renal pelvis]. In 6/1/09 a TURBT showed three separate lesions on the right side of the bladder. The final diagnosis was high grade urothelial carcinoma in-situ with three tumors, the largest being 7mm. Per rule M8, the renal pelvis primary and subsequent bladder tumors are the same primary. Would the primary site be changed to C689 [Urinary system, NOS] when the bladder tumors were identified? Or is C689 only coded if more than one primary site is involved at diagnosis?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M8 applies. This is a single primary. The primary site was coded to C659 in 2008. Do not change the primary site code.

    		 2010