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: 02/19/2026 12:13 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20130148 Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are "spinal" schwannomas reportable if stated to be extradural, vertebral nerve sheath, or of specific vertebrae? See Discussion.

Are any of the following cases reportable?

Example 1: Clinical Diagnosis: Extradural spinal cord tumor compatible with schwannoma. What assumptions should be made about reportability if the tumor is described as being extradural? The extradural spinal cord includes epidural fat surrounding the thecal sac and exiting nerve roots. Does this mean there are not nerve roots in the extradural spinal cord?

Example 2: Final Pathologic Diagnosis: Designated "C3-4 nerve sheath tumor" excision: Morphologic and immunohistochemical findings consistent with cellular schwannoma. When stated to be a "nerve sheath tumor" does that mean peripheral nerve (C47_) involvement or nerve root (C72_) involvement?

Example 3: Final Pathologic Diagnosis: T-8 vertebral tumor resection: Schwannoma with degenerative changes (calcification, cyst formation) - ganglion and nerve are identified. There is no mention clinically or pathologically whether this tumor is "intradural" or "of the nerve root." In the absence of information about whether the location of the tumor is intradural or involving the nerve root, is it assumed that it does involve this part of the spinal cord when a specific vertebrae is removed?

Extradural schwannomas are not reportable. Neither vertebral nerve sheath nor a location of/on a specific vertebrae confirm the origin as being either extradural or intradural. Do not report a schwannoma if it cannot be determined to be "intradural" or "of the nerve root." 2013
20130189

Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are the terms 'mass' and 'lesion' reportable terms for accessioning brain and CNS primaries? See Discussion.

With respect to reportability, the SEER Manual mentions 'tumor' and 'neoplasm,' but not 'mass' or 'lesion.' The SEER MP/H Manual states tumor, mass, lesion and neoplasm are equivalent terms for determining multiple primaries, but does this apply to reportability? If not, what is the distinction?

'Mass' and 'lesion' are not reportable terms for benign/borderline brain and CNS tumors.

Reportable terms for benign/borderline brain and CNS primaries are 'tumor' and 'neoplasm.' These terms appear in the ICD-O-3. 'Lesion' and 'mass' do not appear in the ICD-O-3. Do not use the MP/H Manual to determine reportability; page 2 of the SEER Manual is the correct source for reportability instructions.

 2013
20130016 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient is diagnosed with small lymphocytic lymphoma in 1996, received chemotherapy on and off for 15 years due to relapses, and was subsequently diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in 2012?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Per Rule M10, this case should be accessioned as two primaries. According to Rule M10, one is to abstract as multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm AND there is a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis.

The histology for the 1996 chronic neoplasm is coded to 9670/3 [small lymphocytic lymphoma]. The histology for the 2012 acute neoplasm is 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma].

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2013
20130070

Reportability--Is "intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm with low grade dysplasia" (also called IPMN adenoma) reportable? See Discussion.

According to the ICD-O-3, the histology for IPMN adenoma is 8453/0 is non-reportable. However, per SINQ 20021099, this is reportable.

Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the pancreas with low grade dysplasia, also referred to as IPMN adenoma, is not reportable.

IPMN of the pancreas is reportable when stated as "IPMN with high-grade dysplasia," or "IPMN with an associated invasive carcinoma," or  "IPMN with an associated in situ carcinoma."

The case in SINQ 20021099 is stated to have "multifocal high grade dysplasia (so-called borderline tumor and carcinoma in-situ)" and is reportable because there is an explicit statement of carcinoma in situ, not because of the reference to the presence of high grade dysplasia. It is coded 8453/2 [Intraductal papillary-mucinous carcinoma, non-invasive].

 2013
20130121 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is "early essential thrombocythemia" reportable? See Discussion. The bone marrow biopsy diagnosis was, "Combined bone marrow morphologic, flow cytometric, immunohistochemical, molecular and cytogenetic findings are most consistent with early or evolving essential thrombocythemia with low level JAK2 V617F mutation documented on molecular testing." The physician is calling this a benign process. Is this reportable as essential thrombocythemia? Are the terms early or evolving ignored? Does the presence of a JAK2 mutation make this reportable? Without JAK2 testing is this case reportable?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Yes, this is a reportable case. The histology is coded to 9962/3 [essential thrombocythemia]. The positive JAK2 mutation testing and bone marrow biopsy results taken together support the diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia in this case.

In the Abstractor Notes section of the Heme DB, it indicates that only 50-60 percent of patients with essential thrombocythemia will have a positive JAK2 mutation. A diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia can still be made in the absence of a JAK2 mutation. For example, if the bone marrow biopsy final diagnosis or a physician's clinical diagnosis is essential thrombocythemia, despite a negative JAK2 mutation test, the neoplasm is still reportable.

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2013
20130119 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Would this case be reportable? Patient with a myelodysplastic syndrome secondary to a copper deficiency. Myelodysplastic syndrome is a reportable disease. Document in the text that the MDS was due to a copper deficiency. 2013
20130155

Diagnostic confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How do we code diagnostic confirmation if the pathology report states the diagnosis of a skin biopsy is "low-grade B cell lymphoma, most compatible with marginal zone lymphoma," genetic data includes positive rearrangement for immunoglobulin heavy chain gene favor a diagnosis of "B cell lymphoma," and the physician's clinical diagnosis is "cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma"?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Code diagnostic confirmation to 3 [positive histology AND positive immunophenotyping studies (9590/3 - 9992/3)].

Immunoglobulin heavy and light chain genes rearranged is listed under Genetics Data in the Heme DB for 9699/3 [extranodal marginal zone lymphoma]. Given the documentation of this positive genetic finding and the positive bone marrow, code diagnostic confirmation to 3.

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2013
20130003

MP/H Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: How is the histology coded for a mammary analogue secretory carcinoma (MASC) of the parotid gland? See Discussion.

There is no histology listed in the ICD-O-3 for a mammary analogue secretory carcinoma. The pathologist stated that, "MASC is a recently described salivary gland tumor type which, as the name implies, resembles secretory carcinoma of the breast." Should the histology be coded 8550/3 [acinar carcinoma] or 8502/3 [secretory carcinoma of breast]?

Assign code 8502/3 [secretory carcinoma of breast].

Acinar carcinoma [8550/3] describes a very typical type of salivary gland tumor only. This histology code does not adequately capture the histology in this case which describes a secretory carcinoma that is similar to mammary cancer. Both of these elements are reflected in the histology code 8502/3 [secretory carcinoma of breast].

 2013
20130184

Reportability--Appendix: Are low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms reportable?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2022

A low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) is not reportable. The WHO classification designates LAMN with the behavior code /1 [uncertain whether benign or malignant].

 2013
20130012

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: If topography codes C681-C689 are not included in Urinary Multiple Primary Rule M8, would a subsequent renal pelvis papillary transitional cell carcinoma be a new primary? See Discussion.

The patient had a papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder and ureter diagnosed in 2010. The primary site was coded to C689 [urinary system, NOS]. The patient was diagnosed with a transitional cell carcinoma of the renal pelvis [C659] in 2012. In applying the MP/H rules to the 2012 diagnosis, rule M8 would be ignored because the primary site of the 2010 primary was coded to C689. The result is that M9 or M10 would be applied which indicates a new primary for the 2012 diagnosis. Should the 2012 renal pelvis carcinoma be a new primary?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession a single primary, papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder and ureter [C689, urinary system, NOS] diagnosed in 2010. The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). Go to the Urinary MP Rules because site specific rules exist for this primary.

Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. This patient has urothelial tumors in two or more of the listed sites (bladder, ureter and renal pelvis) diagnosed within 3 years.

When C689 is assigned because tumors of the bladder and tumors of the ureter were determined to be a single primary and the site of origin is not known (as in this example), rule M8 is applied when a subsequent tumor is diagnosed in one of the listed sites. However, if site C689 [urinary system, NOS] was assigned for other unknown urinary primary site situations, rule M8 would not be used.

Rule M8 was written specifically for urothelial tumors in the renal pelvis, ureter, bladder and urethra. Paraurethral gland [C681] and overlapping lesions of urinary organs [C688] do not belong in rule M8.

We will add this issue to the list of possible revisions for the next edition of the MP/H Rules.

 2013