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: 02/27/2026 21:30 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20110015 Primary site/Histology: Do the 4/1/09 changes in the ICD-O-3 Site/Type Validation table regarding the coding of primary site for intestinal type adenocarcinoma mean that the former valid site/histology combinations are now impossible and require review from a given diagnosis date forward? See Discussion.

Per the SEER Errata for ICD-O-3 Site/Type Validation List, April 1, 2009, adenocarcinoma, intestinal type, was removed as a valid site/histology combination for the following primary sites: C150-C155, C158-C159, C170-C173, C178-C179, C180-C189, C199, C209, C210-C212, C218.

  • Does this mean that these combinations cannot be used? If so, then why is an override allowed for these site/type combinations? Shouldn't these site/type combinations be added to the impossible site/type combinations table?

  • SINQ 20081085 states that "8144/3 will be removed from the valid site/histology list for large intestine, small intestine, and rectum." It appears from the Site/Type Validation table that a decision was made to also remove esophagus sites as a valid combination with histology code of 8144. Please explain the rationale.

  • Cases that were miscoded to 8144/3 will need to be identified for correction. What date of diagnosis should be the reference point used in making the necessary corrections related to this change? Do we only need to review cases diagnosed 1/1/2009 forward or should all cases be corrected regardless of date of diagnosis?

    • The site/type edit identifies unlikely combinations of primary site and histologic type.

  • Intestinal type adenocarcinoma occurs in the stomach. It would be rare in another primary site, but not impossible.

  • It was decided that all digestive organ sites, except stomach, would be removed from the list. That is why esophagus is not listed as a valid site.

  • The site/type edit is for all years. Cases for all years have to be reviewed for combinations of site and type that are no longer on the list. If it is documented in the medical record that the primary site and histology combination are valid, set the over-ride flag so that the case will not come up for review again.

    		• 2011
    		20200078

    Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Brain and CNS: Should the new malignant term pituitary blastoma be added to Table 3 of the 2018 Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) and Peripheral Nerves Solid Tumor Rules? See Discussion.

    Pituitary blastoma was not added to Table 3 (Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtypes/Variants) of the 2018 Malignant CNS and Peripheral Nerves Solid Tumor Rules as part of the December 2020 update. This is a new malignant CNS histology for 2021 and later. Not including this histology in Table 3 results in the registrars being required to check another source to correctly code this histology. If this histology cannot be used for cases diagnosed prior to 2021, should that diagnosis year clarification be included in the STR?

    This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

    The Solid Tumor Malignant CNS tables do not list pituitary specific histologies at this time. Registrars will need to refer to ICD-O and/or updates until the decision to add malignant pituitary neoplasms is made. Pituitary blastoma is a rare tumor which occurs in children.

    		 2020
    		20230066

    Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Lung: Table 3 in Lung Solid Tumor Rules, 2023 Update, lists neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS 8246 as a specific subtype/variant for small cell carcinoma 8041/3. Should the table be updated? See Discussion.

    Small cell carcinoma is a specific type of neuroendocrine carcinoma for the lung. However, Table 3 lists neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS as the more specific subtype/variant in Column 3.

    Using Lung Solid Tumor Rules, Rule H6, a diagnosis of poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (small cell carcinoma)” would be coded as 8246, instead of 8041, because there are two histologies under consideration (an NOS and a subtype/variant in Table 3), and the rule tells us to code the subtype/variant. However, small cell carcinoma is more specific than the NOS diagnosis (neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS). Should Table 3 be updated to reflect which histology is the NOS and which is the more specific?

    The Solid Tumor Rules for Lung have been updated for 2024. The row for Small cell carcinoma 8041/3 has been deleted and new separate rows have been added for Neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) 8246 and Neuroendocrine tumor, NOS (NET) 8240. This change is based on the WHO Classification of Thoracic Tumors, 5th edition, and current concepts. In addition, Table 3 now reflects that Small cell carcinoma/small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma 8041 (located in Column 3) is a subtype/variant of neuroendocrine carcinoma, NEC 8246 (Column 1). As a result, application of Rule H6 to a diagnosis of poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (small cell carcinoma)” would be coded as 8041, instead of 8246. Please note: the 2024 updates may be used for cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2024 unless otherwise noted in the rules.

    		 2023
    		20180110

    Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code of a 2018 lung case whose pathology states adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant?

    The Solid Tumor Rules for Lung rule H4 applies. Per Table 3, page 12, third column on adenocarcinoma row, adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant is coded to 8551/3.

    		 2018
    		20200074

    Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Head & Neck: What specific table(s) in the 2021 Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules if any, apply to tumors of the lip? See Discussion.

    Lip has not been added to any of the site-specific histology tables, nor has any other instruction been provided for coding tumors in this site.

    Coding histology for lip primaries is difficult because registrars do not know where to look first. The Solid Tumor Rules indicate one should use the tables first, but then do not inform registrars what table to use for a lip primary (i.e., a specific table, any table, no table).

    This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

    The tables are based on WHO H&N chapters which do not include lip. There are inherent issues in determining reportability for lip primaries based on site and histology. The decision was made prior to release of the 2018 rules to exclude a histology table for lip. We are consulting both our dermatology and H&N pathology experts to explore adding a lip site-specific table to the rules.

    		 2020
    		20100046

    Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a clinical remission sufficient to change the tumor status to "disease free" for a patient on long-term chemotherapy for a diagnosis of either a chronic hematologic disease, such as CML, or a myeloproliferative disorder, such as essential thrombocythemia? See Discussion.

    For some patients with chronic hematologic diseases, the disease/recurrence status could change frequently as chemotherapy is started and stopped over an extended period of time. Should the tumor status for these cases always be "not disease free"? When the physician documents the patient is in clinical remission, does their status change to "NED or disease free?" There seems to be a lot of variation across the US in how registrars are coding this field. Clarification would be appreciated.

    The term "disease free" is not used in a standard fashion for hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms.

    Code the cancer status to free of disease when the physician indicates NED. For hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms, a physician's statement of NED, disease-free, clinical remission or no evidence of disease at this time, should be recorded with cancer status to disease free. The term "disease free" or NED means that there is no clinical evidence of disease.

    		2010
    		20170071

    Reportability/Brain and CNS: Is incidentaloma reportable from brain and central nervous system (CNS) imaging? See Discussion.

    We are seeing the term "incidentaloma" on magnetic resonance imaging (MR) reports of head and also with physician statements. For example, this MR of the head: Impression--Suboptimal study due to motion degradation. Heterogeneously enhancing pituitary gland without evidence of acute abnormality. A 3 mm focus of relative hypoenhancement in the left gland is favored to represent an incidentaloma. Advise correlation with clinical findings.

    Also, there are cases where the scans show meningioma and then at a later date it is stated to be an incidentaloma in physician notes.

    Is the term "incidentaloma" alone reportable, if the term "tumor" for CNS cases is never stated? When I googled the term, it is stated to mean "tumor."

    The term "incidentaloma" alone is not reportable. Look for a reportable term elsewhere or in later information. When the term "incidentaloma" is used on a magnetic resonance imaging (MR) report, it refers to "a disease or physical condition found as a secondary by-product of capturing the necessary volume of tissue within the field of view of the MR examination" (http://radsource.us/incidentaloma). It is not necessarily neoplastic.

    		 2017
    		20200072

    Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned when there are multiple synchronous/non-contiguous tumors when one tumor is metaplastic carcinoma (with carcinoma No Special Type (NST) or lobular carcinoma) and another tumor is strictly carcinoma, NST? See Discussion.

    Is an M rule needed to address multiple tumors and Note 2 in Table 3? Does Note 2 in Table 3 apply when multiple tumors exist and one tumor contains only ductal carcinoma?

    The M Rules currently confirm that a metaplastic carcinoma (whether it is involved with ductal or lobular) and a separate ductal carcinoma are separate primaries because these histologies are on different rows in Table 3 (separate primaries per M14). There is no specific rule regarding metaplastic carcinomas in the Multiple Tumors (M Rules) module, so presumably, the presence of a separate ductal carcinoma is not lumped into Note 2 in Table 3 for metaplastic carcinoma.

    However, the note is confusing when there are multiple tumors involved because it appears to the registrars there are two options for coding the histology. To some registrars, the rules indicate it does not matter if the tumor is predominantly ductal carcinoma as long as some percentage of metaplastic carcinoma is present, code histology to metaplastic carcinoma. For other registrars, the presence of solely a ductal carcinoma in a second tumor is a separate primary from the separate metaplastic carcinoma.

    The M rules and Note 2 need to clarify this issue to promote consistency.

    This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

    The term "mixed" implies a single tumor comprised of metaplastic carcinoma or variants of metaplastic and duct or lobular. The metaplastic histology is coded regardless of whether it comprises the majority (greater than 50% of the tumor). M13 is the only rule specific to metaplastic and is in the single tumor module. This implies a single tumor with both histologies. When there are multiple tumors, one with metaplastic or a subtype/variant of metaplastic and another with a histology listed on a different row, continue to the Multiple Tumors module. M13 applies and there are two primaries. We will add "single tumor" to the note in Table 2 in the next update.

    		 2020
    		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
    		20180070

    Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: The Histology coding guidelines for lung cancer state to code histology when stated as type or subtype but not to code when described as pattern. How should the histology be coded (Adeno, NOS or Adeno, Mixed subtypes) if the College of Americal Pathologists Protocol of the pathology report lists the following: Histologic type: Adenocarcinoma, papillary (90%), lepidic (8%), and solid (2%) patterns?

    The term/modifier "patterns" is no longer allowed to code a specific histology according to the Lung Solid Tumor H rules. Disregard the papillary, lepidic, and solid patterns and code histology to adenocarcinoma, NOS (8140/3).

    		 2018