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: 05/12/2026 01:59 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
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
20150052

Primary Site--Sarcoma: What is the best primary site code for an undifferentiated sarcoma of the pulmonary artery? See discussion.

Consolidation of the case: The operating hospital stated: SOFT TISSUE: Resection: Procedure: Radical resection Other: Pneumonectomy Tumor Site: Right pulmonary artery - They used code C383 (mediastinum NOS).  The consulting hospital stated: Lung, right, pneumonectomy: High grade sarcoma consistent with intimal sarcoma; tumor involves pulmonary artery.  They used code C449 (other soft tissue NOS).  Would C493 (soft tissue thorax) be correct?

Code the primary site to pulmonary artery, C493. According to the WHO classification of tumors, intimal sarcomas are malignant mesenchymal tumors arising in large blood vessels. They show mostly intraluminal growth with obstruction of the vessel. They may occur in the pulmonary vessels or, less often, in the aorta.

2015
20150048

Reportability--Skin: Is low grade trichoblastic carcinoma, with a small focus of high grade carcinoma of the scalp reportable? See discussion.

Pathology report states: the individual nodules of trichoblastic cells resemble those seen in trichoblastoma, but the lesion is very poorly circumscribed with an infiltrative border that extends into the subcutis. the lesion may behave in a locally aggressive fashion, and should be completely removed. High grade trichoblastic carcinomas can metastasize.

Trichoblastic carcinoma of the skin is not reportable. The WHO classification lists trichoblastic carcinoma as a synonym for basal cell carcinoma, 8090/3. Basal cell carcinoma of the skin is not reportable. See page 11 in the SEER manual, http://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2015/SPCSM_2015_maindoc.pdf.

2015
20150019

Reportability/Histology--Pancreas:  Is well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (M8240/3) as stated on a pathology report reportable or can the clinical information be used as an adjunct to the path report, which further states the specific type of neuroendocrine tumor is an Insulinoma, therefore, NOT reportable (M8151/0)? See discussion.

The diagnosis date is 2/24/14.  The pathology report of the pancreas shows: Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (NET), low grade (WHO G1 of 3). Addendum: Ki-67 confirms low grade of pancreatic endocrine tumor (less than 2% Ki-67/MIB-1 index). Chromogranin confirms the endocrine nature of the tumor. The Pre and Post Op Diagnosis is pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor consistent with insulinoma. AJCC Stage as noted on path report: pT1, pNX, pM.

The physician states: The patient has a well-documented insulinoma. Biochemistries confirmed the disease and it is localized in the tail of the pancreas.

The issue with NETs is that pathology report reflects what is seen or what is quantified under the microscope; often, there is a specimen without the accompanying medical history and clinical signs. Many of these NETs are specified on the basis of the hormone, as usually measured in the blood, that is overproduced, something not seen microscopically. All of the islet cell tumors are NETs. The insulinoma in the example above is a well-differentiated NET that is causing insulin to be over-produced. Thus, the diagnoses are not discordant; insulinoma is a more specific NET.

When the pathology diagnosis is a neuroendocrine tumor (/3) and the clinical diagnosis is an insulinoma (/0), report the case.  Although ICD-O-3 classifies insulinoma as /0, the most recent WHO classification lists it as /3. The pathologist and physicians for this case are likely guided by the WHO classification and as a result, would view both the NET diagnosis and the insulinoma diagnosis as malignant. You could report this case as 8240/3 or 8151/3.

2015
20150034

MP/H/Histology/neuroendocrine : How should the following histologies with neuroendocrine differentiation be coded?

1.  Bladder - Invasive urothelial carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation

2.  Nasopharnyx - Undifferentiated nonkeratinizing nasopharyngeal carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation

3.  Ductal carcinoma in situ (with neuroendocrine features) cribriform and solid patterns

See discussion.

We are starting to see more specific histologies with neuroendocrine differentiation. How are we to deal with these histologies and will this be addressed in the revised MP/H rules?

The term neuroendocrine is often included with other histologies and usually means that neuroendocrine cells are present but not neuroendocrine tumor.

1.  If the neuroendocrine cells are stated to be either small cell or large cell, code that histology; however, neuroendocrine, NOS mixed with urothelial does not have an applicable mixed code. Code histology to 8120.

2.   Code histology to squamous cell carcinoma, nonkeratinizing, NOS (8072/3). The neuroendocrine component is not specified as either small cell or large cell.

3.  Code to 8523/2 per MP/H Rule H6 as intraductal mixed with other types of carcinoma present.

Note that while neuroendocrine differentiation can be identified, it seems to have no prognostic implications. We have consulted with our site specific Subject Matter Experts on how best to capture neuroendocrine, NOS when combined with other histologies. These instructions will be included in the revision of the MP/H rules including the wording of MP/H breast rule H6.

2015
20150025

Primary Site--Lung: What are the guidelines for coding primary site when a lung tumor is described as a hilar mass? See discussion.

At a recent meeting, one registry stated that they apply the following guidelines.

1) If the tumor is described as a hilar mass and there is no mention of LN involvement, Primary Site is coded to hilum (C340)

2) If there is LN involvement along with the mention of a hilar mass, then Primary Site is coded to C349

Assign primary site code C340 when a lung tumor is described as a hilar mass.

2015
20150005

Reportability--Skin: Is this case not reportable if the intranasal polyp is covered with cutaneous epithelium (essentially skin) or, is it reportable as a primary intranasal basal cell carcinoma? I have found one article regarding primary intranasal basal cells, which are described as being "very rare". But, I am not sure whether, in those cases, cutaneous epithelium was found.

FINAL DIAGNOSIS: (A) Nasal cavity, polyp, excision: Sinonasal inflammatory polyp with overlying cutaneous epithelium showing foci of superficial (noninvasive) basal cell carcinoma

Report this case as a basal cell carcinoma, noninvasive, of the nasal cavity, based on the information provided.

The polyp was removed from the nasal cavity (C300) which is a reportable site for basal cell carcinoma.

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
20150061

Reportability--Vulva: Is this reportable? We have begun to see the following diagnosis on biopsies of the vulva with the statement below. The diagnosis is being given as simply VULVAR INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA, no grade is noted.  See discussion.

The note explains: The International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD) in 2004 revised its classification of VIN by eliminating VIN 1 and combining VIN 2 and VIN 3 into a single category (see table below). Classification of VIN (usual type) ISSVD [International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease]1986 classification 2004 classification VIN 1 VIN2 VIN3 VIN Note: VIN 2 and VIN 3 combined into single [non-graded] category, VIN Reference: Scurry J and Wilkinson EJ.  Review of terminology of precursors of vulvar squamous cell carcinoma. Journal of lower genital tract disease, 2006; 10(3):  161-169

Vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia with no grade specified is not reportable. Reportability instructions have not changed. See page 11 in the SEER manual, http://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2015/SPCSM_2015_maindoc.pdf

2015
20150016

Reportability--Stomach:  Is a well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor of the stomach reportable?

Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (NET) of the stomach is reportable. The WHO classification of digestive system tumors uses the term NET G1 (grade 1) as a synonym for carcinoid and well-differentiated NET, 8240/3.

2015