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: 04/27/2025 14:29 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20160001

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries/Histology--Rectum: How many primaries does this person have and what is the correct histology? See discussion.

Rectal polyp excised in June, 2012, found to have adenocarcinoma in situ in a tubulovillous adenoma. Additional colorectal biopsies in November; all were negative. Another rectal polyp removed in December 2012 showing a tubulovillous adenoma with focal carcinoma in situ. Then, in February, 2013 another rectal polyp removed. This was diagnosed as mod. diff. adenocarcinoma with mucinous features, infiltrating into submucosa, seen in a background of tubulovillous adenoma. Surgical margins free (mucin %=40%). Finally, in May, 2013, a low anterior resection with no residual adenocarcinoma.

This appears to be adenocarcinoma in multiple adenomatous polyps (8221/3), although the final path from May 2013 described one benign polyp and said, 'no other masses, suspicious lesions or polyps are identified.' Going through the MP/H rules, both M13 and M14 result in this being a single primary, and come before the rule about an invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later is a new primary. The original abstract was coded C209 and 8263/2. If this is a single primary, should it be changed to 8221 with a behavior code of 3? Is this scenario another example of when to change the original diagnosis based on subsequent information?

Abstract a single primary and code as 8263/3. Other Sites rule M14 applies. The histology code is 8263/3 based on rules H28 and H12. Apply H28 first, make a second pass through the H rules and apply H12. See slide 18 in the "Beyond the Basics" presentation for applicable instructions on a similar situation, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/training_adv/SEER_MPH_Gen_Instruc_06152007.pdf

This case is an example of the need to update the original abstract based on more complete, subsequent, information.

2016
20160076

MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: What is the histology code for a tumor originating in the cerebellum and extending into the fourth venrticle described as a glioblastoma with primitive neuroectodermal tumor component (WHO Grade IV)?

The WHO Classification of CNS tumours lists glioblastoma with primitive neuroectodermal tumor component as a subtype of glioblastoma and assigns 9440/3. Also referred to as glioblastoma with a primitive neuronal component.

2016
20160053

MP/H Rules/Histology: How is the histology coded for an invasive adenocarcinoma arising in a papilloma with high-grade dysplasia? See Discussion.

Patient has a perihilar bile duct primary with a microscopic focus of invasive moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma arising in a large papilloma. The MP/H Rules do not address adenocarcinomas arising in a papilloma, only adenocarcinomas arising in an adenoma (or polyp). Should the histology be coded as 8140 for the invasive adenocarcinoma component? Or should the matrix principle be applied and the histology coded as a malignant glandular papilloma (8260/3)?

Assign 8503/3 for invasive adenocarcinoma arising in a papilloma with high-grade dysplasia, perihilar bile duct primary. Neither ICD-O-3 nor the WHO classification have a code for this specific histology; however, our expert pathologist consultant states 8503/3 is the best available choice based on pages 264 and 273 in the WHO Digestive system classification.

2016
20160034

First course treatment/Immunotherapy--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is donor leukocyte infusion for treatment of hematopoietic neoplasms coded as a bone marrow transplant per the Hematopoetic Manual or as immunotherapy per SEER Inquiry System (SINQ) 20110048?  See Discussion.

In the Hematopoetic Manual, page 22, it is states: "The use of donor leukocyte infusions for treatment of hematopoietic neoplasms, specifically leukemias, is increasing.  Abstract as bone marrow transplant when a reportable hematopoietic neoplasm is treated with donor leukocyte infusion, even if it is not listed in the treatment section of the Heme db for the specific neoplasm."  Question 20110048 in the SEER Inquiry, it is stated "Donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) is coded as immunotherapy."  Donor lymphocyte infusion and donor leukocyte infusions are the same procedure.  Please clarify discrepancy as coding is needed for a case treated with donor lymphocytic infusion.

Code donor lymphocyte infusion as immunotherapy. SINQ 20110048 is correct. The Hematopoietic Manual will be corrected during the next update.

2016
20160062

Grade--Kidney: Should WHO/ISUP grade for renal cell carcinoma be coded for cases diagnosed 2016 and later? See discussion.

 

The 2016 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System appears to be moving away from using Fuhrman grading toward using WHO/ISUP grade. These seem like similar 4 grade staging systems; however, the SEER Manual specifically states to not use the Special Grade System table for WHO/ISUP. We are seeing the WHO/ISUP grade being used on 2016 pathology reports.

Examples of new grading for renal cell carcinomas

Histologic type: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Histologic grade (WHO/ISUP 2016): Grade 3 in a background of 2 (of 4).

And

Histologic type: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Histologic grade (ISUP): Grade 2.

Do not record WHO/ISUP grade in the grade/differentiation field.

Designated fields for this grade system are being proposed for future implementation.

2016
20160045

Neoadjuvant treatment/Grade--Prostate: How should the grade/differentiation field be coded when hormone therapy is given prior to radiation for metastatic prostate cancer? Is hormone treatment "neoadjuvant treatment" in this situation? Per NCCN guidelines, neoadjuvant hormone therapy is strongly discouraged outside of a clinical trial for localized disease. However for metastatic disease, hormone is recommended (gold standard). See discussion.

8/1/15 CT Exam showed enlarged prostate and left seminal vesicle with multiple enlarged pelvic LNs. Findings: suspicious for prostate cancer with invasion of seminal vesicle. Bone scan findings: positive bone mets in multiple sites. PSA 169.0 (elevated). Patient was started on casodex 8/12/15. A prostate biopsy was performed on 9/16/15 to confirm diagnosis, adenocarcinoma Gleason 4+5. Patient's treatment continued with radiation to bone.

For cases diagnosed prior to 2018

Code the grade/differentiation field from the biopsy for this situation. According to experts consulted, hormone therapy does not alter the grade in this case and grade should be coded based on information after hormone therapy when that is the only grade information available.

 2016
20160049

Grade/Sarcoma--Breast: Is the correct grade for high grade angiosarcoma of the breast a code 3 or 4? The breast usually uses a three grade system but sarcoma is not a typical histologic type of the breast.

Assign grade code 4 using the sarcoma table. Nottingham or Bloom-Richardson (BR) Score/Grade does not apply to angiosarcomas. This is a good question and points out needed clarification of the grade rules.

2016
20160068

Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are sphenoid wing meningiomas reportable? See discussion.

It's my understanding that true intraosseous meningiomas are very rare. It's also my understanding that cranial meninges DO cover the sphenoid wing, so I'm wondering if it's possible to have a meningioma of the sphenoid wing on imaging that arises from the meninges NOT the bone. Is that the deciding factor on reportability? It's been suggested to me that meninges cells do lie within the bone, but again if a meningioma is described as being located at the sphenoid wing on imaging, without bone involvement - and no surgery is performed - I do not understand why it is specifically excluded as non-reportable.

This answer pertains to cases diagnosed prior to 2018. For 2018 and later cases, refer to the Non-Malignant CNS Solid Tumor Rules.

Note: This answer updates previous answers which have been removed from the SEER Inquiry System.

Intraosseous meningiomas are not reportable. You are correct, these are rare meningiomas originating in bone. The term "sphenoid wing meningioma" is sometimes used for an intraosseous meningioma of the sphenoid bone. Yes, it's possible to have a meningioma of the sphenoid wing on imaging that arises from the meninges NOT the bone. Read the available information carefully. When the site of origin is described as "along the sphenoid wing" or "overlying the sphenoid wing" report the meningioma. These descriptions indicate that the meningioma originates from the meninges covering bone rather than the bone itself. Meningioma arising in bone is rare enough, that when present, we would expect it to be clearly stated as such. In the absence of a statement indicating origin in bone, the meningioma is most likely arising from meninges covering the bone.

 2016
20160021

Primary Site--Stomach: How do I code the primary site when the operative report and pathology report state that the tumor site is incisura of the stomach?

Assign C163. Incisura, incisura angularis, gastric angular notch, angular incisure of stomach all refer to the sharp angular depression in the lesser curvature of the stomach at the junction of the body with the pyloric canal. See Gastric angular notch in #12 on page 76 in the SEER manual, http://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2015/SPCSM_2015_maindoc.pdf.  See also the SEER training website, #12 on the illustration corresponds to the angular notch, http://training.seer.cancer.gov/ugi/anatomy/stomach.html. We will correct the key for this illustration.

2016
20160046

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Bladder: How many primaries should be reported for the case below? See discussion.

1993 Renal pelvis: Papillary urothelial carcinoma

1994 Bladder: Noninvasive bladder ca NOS

6/11/13 Bladder: Noninvasive papillary urothelial carcinoma

8/19/14 Bladder: urothelial carcinoma in situ

2/13/15 Bladder: Papillary urothelial carcinoma

Would this situation be 2 primaries - 1993 Renal pelvis and 1994 Bladder with the 2015 being the same primary as 1993 Renal pelvis? Or 3 primaries - 1993 Renal pelvis, 1994 Bladder, 2015 Bladder?

Abstract four primaries, 1993 renal pelvis, 1994 bladder, 2013 bladder, and 2015 bladder.

The 1993 renal pelvis diagnosis and the 1994 bladder diagnosis are separate primaries based on the rules in effect at that time (See pages 7-11, http://seer.cancer.gov/archive/manuals/historic/codeman_1992.pdf )

For the remaining diagnoses, the 2007 MP/H rules apply. The 2013 bladder diagnosis is a new primary per rule M7. The 2014 bladder diagnosis is not a new primary per rule M6. The 2015 bladder diagnosis is a new primary per rule M5.

2016