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 07:27 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20140006 Date Therapy Initiated--Corpus Uteri: How should this field be coded for an endometrial primary when the patient undergoes a hysteroscopic polypectomy on 01/08/2014 (Surgery code 25), followed by a TAH/BSO on 02/07/2014 (Surgery code 50)? See discussion. The hysteroscopic polypectomy showed multiple tissue fragments with invasive endometrioid adenocarcinoma. The hysterectomy and BSO removed an 8.2cm endometrioid carcinoma with no extra-uterine involvement. Record 01/08/2014 for date therapy initiated assuming there was no therapy prior to this date. A polypectomy is a surgical procedure for purposes of coding date therapy initiated. 2014
20140017

Multiple Primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: 2012 path report for removal of an "axillary mass" which consists of 80% diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and 20% follicular lymphoma. In the original manual, Module 6 instructed us to code as a single primary, DLBCL. However, the multiple primary calculator says each disease is a separate primary. When I looked them up in the data base, I did not get an option to review a current manual. Can you please advise?

Code as a single primary with histology Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.

In this case, there are two NHLs in the same location at the same time. Apply Rule M4, this is one primary. Per Note 5 under Rule M4, go to Rules PH11and PH15 to assign primary site and histology.

Rule PH11 states to code to the site of the origin (axillary mass) and to diffuse large b-cell lymphoma (9680/3) when DLBCL and any other non-Hodgkin lymphoma (follicular in this case) are present in the same location at the same time.

Using the multiple primaries calculator in this situation will give you two primaries, which is the wrong answer. Use the rules before using the calculator.

To get to the manual, go to the "Help me code for dx year." section. Choose 2010 or later and the most current manual will appear. We recommend that you save a copy of the PDF on your computer.

2014
20140036

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Prostate: Is duct carcinoma of the prostate the same as an adeno/acinar carcinoma of the prostate? Specifically, does rule M3 apply when there is an adenocarcinoma of the prostate followed by a duct carcinoma of the prostate or a duct carcinoma followed by adenocarcinoma?

Rule M3 does not apply to adenocarcinoma followed by duct carcinoma of the prostate or vice versa. Rule M3 pertains to cases of adenocarcinoma and acinar carcinoma. These two terms, adenocarcinoma and acinar carcinoma, are equivalent for the purpose of applying the MP/H rules to prostate cases. See page 77 of the Other Sites Terms and Definitions, http://www.seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/mphrules_definitions.pdf

 

2014
20140069

MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney, renal pelvis: How would you code this histology: Renal cell carcinoma, clear and eosinophilic cell type?

Kidney rule H5 applies, code the more specific histology which is clear cell renal cell carcinoma (8310/3). Per the WHO Tumors of the Urinary System, clear cell renal cell carcinoma contains both clear and eosinophilic cytoplasm. Eosinophilic is not a type or variant of renal cell carcinoma.

2014
20140066

First course treatment: When a patient has a Haplo bone marrow transplant, is this coded as an allogenic bone marrow transplant since part of his marrow was used in addition to a donor?

Use code 12 in the Hematologic Transplant & Endocrine Procedures data field. Per the NCI, this procedure is an allogeneic transplant.

Rather than wiping out a patient’s immune system before transplanting donor bone marrow, doctors administer just enough chemotherapy to suppress the immune system, which keeps patients from rejecting the donated marrow without harming their organs. The procedure requires just a half-match, meaning that a patient’s parents or children could be suitable donors. AKA: Half-match transplants.

2014
20140049

Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is Tuberculum sellae meningioma reportable? Is it same as sphenoidale meningioma?

Path: Brain tuberculum tumor resection: Meningioma, WHO grade I.

Revised answer based on ST rules

Yes, a Tuberculum sella meningioma is reportable if diagnosed 2004 or later. Code the primary site C700, cerebral meninges. It is a meningioma originating from the meninges of the Tuberculum sellae, which is part of the sphenoid bone.

 2014
20140061

Primary Site/In Situ: How is primary site coded for an in situ carcinoma arising in a mucinous cystadenoma with ovarian stroma (focal) located in the right lobe of the liver? See discussion.

The SEER Coding and Staging Manual instructs one to code the primary site to the location where the tumor originated, in this case the liver. However, there is no CS Extension code for in situ tumors found in the CS Manual Liver Schema.

Based on the information provided, the primary site is liver. Submit the CS question to the CoC CAnswer Forum, http://cancerbulletin.facs.org/forums/content.php

2014
20140062

MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: Does lung MP/H Rule M6 apply to synchronous tumors only, metachronous tumors only, or both? See discussion.

How many primaries should be reported when a patient has a history of RLL adenocarcinoma diagnosed on 10/8/2009 followed by diagnoses of LUL adenocarcinoma on 10/5/2012 and a RUL adenocarcinoma on 3/26/2014?

We applied Rule M6 to the 10/5/2012 diagnosis of LUL adenocarcinoma and reported an additional primary. However, we are unsure how to apply the MP/H rules for the 3/26/2014 RUL adenocarcinoma.

Should we apply Rule M8 because the RUL adenocarcinoma was diagnosed more than 3 years after the original RLL adenocarcinoma and then apply M6 because the RUL and LUL indicate a single tumor in each lung (resulting in a third primary); or does Rule M12 apply because there has been more than a single tumor in each lung (no new primary)?

Assuming each of the three diagnoses is a single tumor and there are no other tumors in either lung, abstract two primaries: 1 in the RLL diagnosed on 10/8/2009 and 1 in the LUL diagnosed on 10/5/2012. Do not abstract the 3/26/2014 diagnosis as a new primary.

Rule M6 applies to the 2009 and 2012 diagnoses. Rule M12 applies to the 2012 and 2014 diagnoses. Do not compare the 2014 diagnosis to the 2009 diagnosis. Always compare the latest diagnosis to the most recent previous diagnosis in cases like this.

2014
20140033

Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Prostate: Can you clarify why a prostate biopsy diagnosis of “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” is not reportable while a biopsy diagnosis of “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable? See discussion.

SINQ 20091103 states that prostate biopsies showing “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” are NOT reportable. However, SINQ 20071056 states that “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable. This appears to be an issue of semantics with no clearly outlined method to determine reportability of such cases.

We have two recent cases with similar semantic issues and want to know whether they are reportable.

1) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation, highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma, with quality/quantity insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer.”

2) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma but due to the small size of focus, findings are not definitively diagnostic.”

Both case examples provided are reportable using instructions for ambiguous terminology. The diagnoses are qualified by the words "highly suspicious" because neither diagnosis is definitive ("insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer" and "not definitively diagnostic."). However, we follow our instructions for interpreting ambiguous terminology and report these cases.

SINQ 20091103 differs slightly. The final diagnosis in 20091103 declares unequivocally "not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma." That phrase in the final diagnosis negates the ambiguous terminology. The situation in 20071056 is similar to the two examples above - the ambiguous terminology instructions apply.

2014
20140040

Reportability/Primary Site--Lip: Is a right lower lip (NOS) squamous cell carcinoma reportable when the microscopic description states the tumor arises from the epidermis and extends through the dermis? See discussion.

We are having difficulty determining whether the primary site is lip, NOS (C009) or skin of lip (C440). Usually we look for a statement of “skin” or “mucosa” in the microscopic description if the specimen label is only lip, NOS as instructed by the previous SINQ 20051049. Is a statement of "epidermis" or "dermis" in the microscopic description enough to indicate carcinoma is arising in the skin of the lip (C440) and thus not reportable?

This case is interpreted as skin of lip and not reportable. According to our expert pathologist consultant, the pathologist in this case "is specifically saying "epidermis" and "dermis" and I would have to think it is skin, and thus not reportable."

2014