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: 02/26/2026 15:14 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20091039 CS Tumor Size--Lung:. Does code 997 (diffuse, entire lobe) for lung and main stem bronchus take precedence over a stated tumor size? See Discussion. Per SPCSM 2007 'Coding Instructions for CS Staging Data Items-CS Tumor Size' item 5c states that code 998 (diffuse, entire lung) for lung and main stem bronchus takes precedence over any mention of size. Does this apply to code 997 as well?

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.Code the stated tumor size rather than 997. Code 997 does not take precedence over tumor size at this time. According to CoC, the instructions in the CS Manual, Part I-27, rule 5c are to alert the user to special circumstances. Code 997 is not included because it is not diffuse for all of the sites listed. The site-specific rules and codes in the schema always take precedence. Further instructions and clarifications will be added to the lung schema, CS Manual Part II-317 in the next version of CS.

 2009
20091125

Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Thyroid: Should a thyroid case be accessioned based only on a cytology that is consistent with papillary carcinoma? See Discussion.

Instructions in the 2007 SPCSM state that we are not to accession a case based only on a suspicious cytology. Does this rule apply only to the term "suspicious" or does it apply to all ambiguous terms? Example: FNA of thyroid nodule is consistent with papillary carcinoma.

 Do not accession the case if the cytology is the only information in the medical record. The phrase "Do not accession a case based only on suspicious cytology" means that the cytology is the only information in the record. If there is other information that supports the suspicion of cancer (radiology reports, physician statements, surgery), then accession the case. The phrase "suspicious cytology" includes all of the ambiguous terms. 2009
20091130

MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What is the correct histology code and MP/H rule used for 1) infiltrating ductal carcinoma, mucinous type and 2) infiltrating ductal carcinoma with features of tubular carcinoma? See Discussion.

There is confusion as to which rule applies. Should the histologies be coded to 8480/3 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] and 8211/3 [tubular adenocarcinoma] respectively per rule H12? Rule H12 states to code the most specific histologic term; "type" and "with features of" are used in the pathologic diagnosis and are both terms that can be used to code the specific histology. Or would the histology be coded 8523 for both examples per rule H17 because neither histologic codes 8480/3 or 8211/3 are included as examples of duct carcinomas, nor are they included in Table 2?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code 8523 [infiltrating duct mixed with other types of carcinoma] for

1. Infiltrating ductal carcinoma, mucinous type and

2. Infiltrating ductal carcinoma with features of tubular carcinoma

The infiltrating ductal types in Rule H12 are listed (8022, 8035, 8501-8508) and do not include mucinous or tubular. We cannot use this rule. The first rule that applies to these single tumors is H17, code to 8523. If you look up 8523 in the numerical morphology section of ICD-O-3, you will see similar examples included in the definition of this code.

2009
20091049 P/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung/Breast: Can we assume that a current tissue specimen is a recurrence of previous primary if a pathologist states that he has compared the current specimen with the slides from the prior tumor and concludes that the current tumor is "similar" to a previous tumor? See Discussion.

The MP/H rule general information section states that we do not accession a second primary unless a pathologist compares the current tumor to the original tumor and states that the current tumor is a recurrence of cancer from the previous primary. In our experience it is rare that a pathologist speaks so bluntly. They frequently hedge somewhat.

Are the following statements worded strongly enough for us to make the assumption that the current tumor is a recurrence of patient's previous cancer?

Example 1: Pathologist states: Patient's prior lung tumor reviewed. The tumor in the current case (left lower lobe) shows similarities to some areas of the patient's prior left lower lobe tumor.

Example 2: Pathologist states: The focus of ductal carcinoma in the mastectomy specimen does resemble the carcinoma in the previous partial mastectomy specimen. (Slides reviewed).

All pathologists do not use words in the same way. Therefore, we will not provide a list of specific words to accept or not to accept in order to determine recurrence. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, do not base your decision about recurrence on words such as "similar" or "resembles." If the pathologist believes two or more tumors are the same or believes one is a recurrence of another after comparison, accept it. When pathologists believe that two or more tumors are not the same or believe that one is not a recurrence of another, there is usually a strong statement indicating that opinion. 2009
20091123

Reportability: Is a tumor reportable if the pathology report indicates a non-reportable diagnosis at the time the specimen is removed but subsequent clinical statements state the patient had a reportable tumor? See Discussion.

The 2007 SEER Manual (page 3) states that cases diagnosed clinically are reportable. Exception 2 states if enough time has passed that it is reasonable to assume the physician has seen the negative pathology report, but the clinician continues to call this a reportable disease, accession the case.

SEER reporting guidelines state that severe dysplasia is not reportable, however, many clinicians regard it to be equivalent to carcinoma in situ.

Example 1: In 09-2007 the pathology report for excisional biopsy of right floor of mouth states the final diagnosis is severe dysplasia. At the time, the case is not accessioned based on non-reportable pathology. Patient is subsequently admitted in 3-09. According to the clinical history the patient was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma in 2007 and treated with laser. Is this reportable? If yes, how is behavior to be coded? How is "Ambiguous Terminology at Diagnosis" to be coded?

Example 2: In 2-08, the pathology report for a punch biopsy of a skin lesion states the final diagnosis is atypical melanocytic hyperplasia. In 3-08, patient is admitted for re-excision. The clinical diagnosis states re-excision being done for melanoma in situ.

Reference: SINQ 20061123

A tumor that is non-reportable based on the pathology report diagnosis should not be accessioned if later clinician statements mistakenly refer to it as a reportable tumor. The exception in the 2007 SEER manual on page 3 is intended to allow the registrar to accession a case when the clinician actually disagrees with the pathology report and clinically diagnoses a reportable tumor.

 2009
20091087 Reportability--Appendix: Is a metastatic low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm reportable if the pathologist states that it is a borderline tumor of the appendix? See Discussion. Low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm; Lt ovary, cul-de-sac, omentum, and small bowel: Metastatic low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm. Per pathologist this is a borderline tumor of the appendix. Borderline tumors (other than brain and CNS) are not reportable to SEER. In the case of borderline tumors, the term "metastatic" does not automatically make them reportable. When the "metastatic deposits" are also borderline, the case is not reportable. For this case in particular, the "metastases" are actually (benign) implants and not malignant or invasive mets. 2009
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
20091088 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded for a diagnosis of "metaplastic carcinoma with the sarcomatous component of high grade sarcoma with focal areas of osteoid formation"? See Discussion. Right breast simple mastectomy, path: 2.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 cm metaplastic carcinoma with; the sarcomatous component is high grade sarcoma with focal areas of osteoid formation. The epithelial component is predominantly grade 2 DCIS. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8575 [Metaplastic carcinoma, NOS]. Metaplastic carcinomas often include mixtures of epithelial carcinoma with sarcoma, for example. 2009
20091098 MP/H Rules/Histology: How is histology coded for a partial vulvectomy showing "vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia III, basaloid type"? See Discussion. Is this VIN III (8077/2) or basaloid squamous cell carcinoma (8083 and change the behavior code from 3 to 2)? It seems that H4 and H6 both lead to 8083.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign 8077/2 [Squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III] for VIN III diagnoses, regardless of the type. According to the WHO Classification of Tumours (page 319), "VIN is predominately of the warty or basaloid types...."

Use the multiple tumors module to determine the histology code for VIN. Rule H21 applies.

 2009
20091109 Surgery of Primary Site - - Esophagus/Stomach/Colon: Is an endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for an esophagus, stomach or colon malignancy coded to 20 [local tumor excision, NOS] or to a more specific code such as 22 [local tumor excision combined with electrocautery]? Assign code 20 [local tumor excision, NOS] for a procedure described as an esophagus stomach or colon endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), NOS. If there is additional information specifying electrocautery, laser or PDT (for example), assign a more specific code. 2009