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: 03/02/2026 11:36 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20150039

Reportability--Skin: Is this reportable? If so, what is the correct histology code? The pathology report says, " bx of 0.7 x 0.5 cm gray-pink papule on tan-pink skin of left inferior centra malar cheek revealed invasive SCC of skin, signet ring cell type, invading papillary dermis; LVI neg; "findings are diag of SCC exhibiting the rare signet ring histologic subtype"; deep margin positive for tumor but peripheral margins clear;".

SCC of skin, signet ring cell type, is not reportable to SEER. SCC's of skin classifiable to 8050-8084 are not reportable to SEER. See page 11 in the SEER manual, http://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2015/SPCSM_2015_maindoc.pdf

Signet ring is a rare histological variant of SCC and is coded to 8070/3 according to the WHO classification for skin tumors.

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
20150007

MP/H Rules/Histology: What is the proper histology code -- mucin producing adenocarcinoma or cholangiocarcinoma for the following case? See discussion.

4/10/13 Partial hepatectomy: well differentiated mucin producing adenoca involve right and left hepatic ducts, common hepatic duct & common bile duct. Invasion beyond wall of bile duct. CT Scan after 1st surgery shows residual neoplasm cannot be excluded

7/31/13 Left lateral segmentectomy: residual well differentiated cholangiiocarcinoma involving connective tissue surrounding major bile ducts. Per medical director, histolgically code to cholangiocarcinoma.

Primary site: Extra hepatic bile duct. Chemo (5FU, Leucovorin, Oxaliplatin) was started 5/1.

 

Code the histology as well differentiated mucin producing adenoca based on the 4/10/13 pathology report.

Code histology from the pathology report of the procedure which removed the most tumor tissue -- this is from the MP/H general instructions for coding histology. We are assuming that the partial hepatectomy removed the most tumor tissue in this case.

Per WHO, mucin producing adenoca is a variant of cholangiocarcioma.

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
20150023

MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: When is 8341/3, papillary microcarcinoma coded? The code description in ICD-O-3 is followed by (C739), yet there are two SINQ answers that tell us specifically to not use this code for thyroid primaries. Even the first revision of ICD-O-3 still carries the (C739) as part of this code, which goes against SINQ 20110027 and 20081127.

Per the WHO Tumors of Endocrine Organs, for thyroid primaries/cancer only, the term micropapillary does not refer to a specific histologic type. It means that the papillary portion of the tumor is minimal or occult (1cm or less in diameter) and was found incidentally. WHO does not recognize the code 8341 and classifies papillary microcarcinoma of the thyroid as a variant of papillary thyroid and thereby should be coded to 8260. If the primary is thyroid and the pathology states papillary microcarcinoma or micropapillary carcinoma, code 8260 is correct. This information will be included in the upcoming revisions to the MP/H manual.                        

2015
20150046

Reportability--Appendix:  Is the appendix the primary site for a low grade mucinous appendiceal neoplasm (LAMN) with diffuse peritoneal dissemination?  See discussion.

Patient had an appendectomy revealing a low grade mucinous appendiceal neoplasm (LAMN) with diffuse peritoneal dissemination. Patient now with cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), which revealed metastatic disease in the abdomen, omentum, pelvic peritoneum, peri-cecal, and gallbladder.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2022

Low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) is not reportable, even when it spreads within the peritoneal cavity, according to our expert pathologist consultant. Peritoneal spread of this /1 neoplasm does not indicate malignancy. It is still /1 when there is spread of LAMN in the peritoneal cavity.

 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
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
20150044

Reportability--Ovary: Is micropapillary serous carcinoma (MPSC) of the ovary reportable? What are the differences between “noninvasive" and “low malignant potential?"  See discussion.

Pathology report reads left ovary: noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC), fragmented; right ovarian excrescence and posterior cul-de-sac: noninvasive implants identified; right ovary: noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC), scattered autoimplants (noninvasive); tumor is present on ovarian surface, noninvasive autoimplants

Noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC) of the ovary is reportable. Assign code 8460/2, applying the ICD-O-3 matrix concept to this noninvasive carcinoma. Noninvasive can be used as a synonym for in situ, ICD-O-3 behavior code /2. See page 66 in the softcover ICD-O-3. Low malignant potential (LMP) means that the neoplasm is not malignant, but has some chance of behaving in a malignant fashion. LMP can be used as a synonym for ICD-O-3 behavior code /1, see page 66.

2015
20150013

Surgery of Primary Site: What is the most extensive, invasive or definitive surgical procedure when the second surgical procedure performed has a lower surgery code? See discussion.

 

Examples

8/xx/13 TURBT with path specimen (27): Papillary Urothelial Carcinoma, HG    9/xx/13 Bladder fulgeration w/o path specimen (12)

5/xx/14 Segmental Mastectomy(24): Ductal carcinoma with <1mm marg    6/xx/14 Breast Re-excision (23): Residual ductal carcinoma 1.5mm, marg neg

The code in Surgical Procedure of Primary Site should correspond to the most invasive, extensive, or definitive surgery when the patient has multiple surgical procedures of the primary site even if there is no residual tumor found in the pathologic specimen from the more extensive surgery. The timing of the procedures does not affect the code choice.

Assign code 27 for the first example. Assign code 24 for the second example.

2015