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: 02/14/2026 17:18 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20150017

MP/H Rules/Histology--Head and Neck: What is the histology code for salivary duct carcinoma of parotid gland?

Code salivary duct carcinoma to invasive ductal carcinoma (8500/3). Salivary duct carcinoma is an aggressive adenocarcinoma which resembles high-grade breast ductal carcinoma according to the WHO Classification of Tumors of Head & Neck.

2015
20150047

Reportability--Bladder: Is a positive UroVysion test alone diagnostic of bladder cancer? See discussion.

The UroVysion website says that standard procedures, e.g., cytology, cystoscopy, take precedence over the UroVysion test. The Quest Diagnostics website says that "A positive result is consistent with a diagnosis of bladder cancer or bladder cancer recurrence, either in the bladder or in another site within the urinary system. A negative result is suggestive of the absence of bladder cancer but does not rule it out." Would we pick up the case if the UroVysion test was positive but the standard procedures were negative or non-diagnostic?

Do not report the case based on UroVysion test results alone. Report the case if there is a physician statement of malignancy and/or the patient was treated for cancer.

2015
20150062

Grade--Bladder: How is Grade coded for the following cases diagnosed 1/1/2014 and later? See Discussion.

1) Low grade urothelial carcinoma, invasive carcinoma not identified (8120/2)

2) Papillary urothelial carcinoma, high grade, no evidence of invasion (8130/2)

The rules for coding Bladder Grade appear to have changed over time. SPCM 2013 Appendix C instructions state that Grade should be coded to 9 for urothelial carcinoma in situ (8120/2) and to 1 or 3 for non-invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma (8130/2).

When the grade instructions were removed from Appendix C in 2014, these site specific instructions for in situ bladder cases were no longer included. Thus the two grade system, found in SPCSM 2014+ Grade/Differentiation Coding Instructions for Solid Tumors, is being used to code grade for both the in situ and invasive urothelial malignancies stated to be "low grade" (code 2) or "high grade" (code 4). See also, SINQ 20150022. Please clarify the current grade instructions for in situ and invasive urothelial carcinomas of the bladder.

Follow the instructions in the 2014+ Grade Coding Instructions to code grade for cases diagnosed 2014 and later, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/grade/   Instruction #4.a. states to code grade for in situ tumors when grade is specified. This instruction applies to bladder cases, as well as other in situ tumors.

1. Assign grade code 2

2. Assign grade code 4

See the note below the table in instruction #7.

2015
20150065

First course treatment/Chemotherapy/Drug category: Instructions in SEER*Rx state that Ibrance should be coded as chemotherapy. They also state that it is an endocrine-based therapy. Local physicians refer to Ibrance as hormone therapy. Please clarify.

For cancer registry data collection, follow the instructions in SEER*Rx. It is important for all data collection to be consistent for reporting of cancer information.

Per the FDA: Ibrance is a chemotheraputic agent which was approved for use WITH Letrozole. Letrozole is a hormonal drug which may be why the physicians are stating the patient is receiving hormones. Ibrance should not be given alone to treat breast cancer. This drug will not be changing categories in SEER*Rx.

2015
20150041

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: Does rule M10 apply in this situation?

L breast biopsy = INVASIVE DUCTAL CARCINOMA

L breast simple mastectomy = 2.0 cm INVASIVE DUCTAL CARCINOMA with an incidental finding of separate 1.0 cm INVASIVE LOBULAR CARCINOMA; pathologist specifically states the tumors are morphologically different. The tumors are both pure Ductal/pure Lobular.

Yes, Breast rule M10 applies. This case is a single primary.

Follow the MP/H rules even though the "pathologist specifically states the tumors are morphologically different" so that situations like this are reported consistenty accross cancer registries, regions, and states for consistent national reporting.

2015
20150055

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is this 2 primaries? In 2011, a patient had a spinal mass biopsied positive for DLBCL and follicular lymphoma. The heme rules make this one primary coded as DLBCL. Patient had 2 rounds of chemo, but in 2014, he had a recurrent tumor in the same location. The 2014 biopsy was follicular lymphoma. Is this a new primary -- conversion of acute to chronic after treatment? Or is it the same, since FL was diagnosed in the original specimen?

Rule M13 applies, abstract as two primaries. Since both DLBCL and FL were present in 2011, rule M2 does not fit -- not a single histology. Rule M13 reflects the situation in this case much better: an acute neoplasm which was treated and a chronic neoplasm diagnosed later.

2015
20150011

Surgery Primary Site--Breast: Please clarify how to code both simple mastectomy with tissue expander and AlloDerm reconstruction, and simple mastectomy with tissue expander (NOS). See discussion.

There are multiple SEER Notes in the Breast Surgery Codes of Appendix C instructing us to code tissue expanders as reconstruction but none address the type of reconstruction to be coded.

1. Is a tissue expander always equivalent to Implant reconstruction?

2. Is AlloDerm always equivalent to Tissue reconstruction?

3. Is the combination of AlloDerm and tissue expander always equivalent to Combined (tissue and implant) reconstruction?

Do not code AlloDerm as either a tissue or implant reconstruction, it is a graft material that usually accompanies implant reconstruction. Placement of a tissue expander is an indication of planned reconstruction. Additional information is needed to determine whether the reconstruction involves tissue or implant.

1. A tissue expander is not always equivalent to Implant reconstruction

2. AlloDerm is not equivalent to tissue reconstruction

3. The combination of AlloDerm and tissue expander is not equivalent to combined (tissue and implant) reconstruction

2015
20150020

Reportability/Primary site--Skin: Is a basal cell carcinoma of the lip "ever" reportable and if so, what would need to be documented or seen?  See discussion.

There is a 1988 case that hit the SEER edits for other reasons but not because of that site/histo combination (C000 and 8090/3); however, there is no text.

Per a Dataminer query, there are 42 cases in the state database with C000-C009 and 8090.  On review, a few did have a mention of the word "upper lip/mucosa" in the PE text or OP findings (not path because a lot of these are removed in the MD office and we don't see the path report). Other times, there is no mention but the abstractor used the C00 codes instead of C44 so the cases get through.

SINQ #20031110 addresses this in relation to C000, Lip, NOS but we want to know if this answer meant you would never report a basal carcinoma lip case period (even if there is a mention of mucosa or any mention of mucosa in the path report). Are there any exceptions?

It seems if you would never report a basal lip carcinoma, then SEER would block those cases from being reported/submitted and the wording would be stronger in the SEER manual.

Right now the reportability only addresses if someone codes C44 but if someone decides to use C00 codes then it is allowed. Under Primary Site, there is even a listing under 12 for "absence of any additional information" and lists "Colored / lipstick portion of upper lip" as code C000.

BCC of lip C00_ is rare and requires a statement that the tumor is on the vermilion border (rather than skin) to be coded C00_ and to be reported. Our expert pathologist consultant refers to an article in the Am Acad Dermatol 2004; 50(3): 384-387.

 2015
20150060

Reportability/MP/H Rules: Where can I find documentation on how to accession malignant tumors in transplanted organs? See discussion.

A patient was diagnosed with hepatocellular cancer (HCC) in 2010, and underwent a hepatectomy, and then received a donor liver. In 2014, HCC was discovered in the liver once again. This likely is a new primary, but there are no specific rules to cover this. There are many odd situations involving transplanted organs, many of which pose reportability and multiple primary problems.

Accession the new tumor in the transplanted organ as you would any other new/second primary. As transplants have become more common especially for liver, lung, and kidney, we are seeing more of these types of cases. We are adding instructions to the revised MP/H rules on coding subsequent primaries when they occur in a transplanted organ. We are also looking at adding a data field that will identify cancers/tumors which arose in a transplanted organ. We feel this is important to track for analysis. Until the revised MP/H rules are implemented, we will look at adding general coding instructions to the SEER Program Manual for transplants.

2015
20150021

MP/H Rules/Histology--Skin: How is histology coded for an "endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma with transformation to mucinous carcinoma"? See Discussion.

Endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma (EMPSCG) is a rare type of low-grade sweat gland carcinoma. Some journal articles indicate that most patients with EMPSCG have coexisting mucinous carcinomas, suggesting that EMPSCG is a precursor to invasive mucinous carcinoma of the skin. Sweat gland carcinoma has its own histology code per the ICD-O-3 (8400/3); should an endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma also be coded as 8400/3? If so, would the correct histology for the skin case above be mucinous carcinoma (8480/3) per Rule H17? Conversely, if the terms "mucin-producing" are referring to mucin-producing carcinoma, and not referring to the sweat gland carcinoma, would the histology be coded 8481/3 (mucin-producing carcinoma)?

Assign 8480/3.

There is no mixed ICD-O-3 code for EMPSCG. Both histologies are in the mucinous family: mucinous adenocarcinoma (8480/3) and sweat gland carcinoma (8400/3). Apply Other sites rule H17 and code the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code (8480/3).

Endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma (EMPSGC) is a rare low-grade sweat gland carcinoma with a strong predilection to the eyelid region. It is histologically analogous to endocrine ductal carcinoma/solid papillary carcinoma of the breast and is characterized by a multinodular solid cystic mucinous tumor with immunoreactivity to neuroendocrine markers. Only 20 cases of this unusual tumor have been reported.

2015