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: 10/07/2026 08:30 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20031023 Grade, Differentiation: Can differentiation be coded from the pathology report for a biopsy from tissue involved by local recurrence? Code grade from original primary site. Do not code grade from a local recurrence. N/A N/A 2003
20200054

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Liver: When does a hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence in the same area of the liver get accessioned as a new tumor following TACE/Y90/RFA? If there is a new HCC in the same area as previously treated but it is stated to be recurrent and/or progressive disease, is that evidence of a disease-free interval? If the tumor area is stated to be LR-TR and non-viable, but then a new HCC in that area is diagnosed, does that count as a disease-free interval? See Discussion.

Example 1: 5/2013 diagnosis of HCC in segment 4B (single tumor), treated with microwave ablation in 7/2013. CT scan in 11/2017 with new 23mm hypodensity in liver segment 4 suspicious for recurrent disease. Clinical assessment in 1/2018: New enlarging lesion in liver most consistent with progression of HCC. Treated with RFA in 2/2018. Is the 2018 occurrence a new primary as imaging stated this was a new lesion?

Example 2: 7/2017 diagnosis of HCC in right liver; 2.5 cm lesion in segment 5/6 with a couple of satellites and 12mm lesion in segment 6, treated with Y90 radioembolization. Follow-up note in 11/2017: complete response of treated cluster of lesions in segment 5/6 and lesion in segment 6, increase in size of caudate lesion not amenable for treatment (this lesion was stated to be indeterminate on 7/2017 imaging). Caudate lesion finally stated as LI-RADS5 on 3/2018 imaging and was treated with chemoembolization 6/2018. 7/2018 and 10/2018 Follow-up imaging states LR-TR nonviable lesion in caudate lobe. 8/2019 CT shows caudate lobe with arterial enhancement, new compared to prior imaging, LR-TR viable. MD note states patient has small local HCC recurrence in segment 1 (caudate lobe) with plan to repeat TACE. Is this 8/2019 HCC a new primary as the patient was disease free for greater than 1 year, or is it the same tumor and a single primary?

Both examples are multiple primaries.

Example 1: The 2018 lesion is a new tumor. Abstract multiple primaries based on 2018 Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M10, when tumors are diagnosed more than one year apart.

Example 2: 2017 diagnosis showed complete response to treatment. 2019 lesion is a new primary based on timing.

The General Instructions of the Solid Tumor Rules instruct: Do not use a physician's statement to decide whether the patient has a recurrence of a previous cancer or a new primary. Each scenario should be evaluated separately using the rules as a guide.

 N/A N/A 2020
20041029

Ambiguous Terminology/Reportability: Are the terms "bordering on" and "may represent" diagnostic of cancer? See Discussion.

Pathology report states "...florid micropapillary hyperplasia, focally atypical with features bordering on low grade micropapillary ductal carcinoma in situ."

The terms "bordering on" and "may represent" are not diagnostic of cancer. These terms are not on the list of ambiguous terms that constitute a diagnosis of cancer. The diagnosis in the example above is not reportable to SEER.

 N/A N/A 2004
20140088

Reportability--GIST: The 2014 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual and the answer to SINQ 20100014 appear to conflict with respect to reporting GIST cases. The manual states (p.5, exception 1) that we are to accession the case if the patient is treated for cancer. However, the patient in Example #7 in the SINQ discussion is receiving chemotherapy, but is deemed not reportable. This is a problematic issue in our area, as pathologists prefer using the NCCN “Risk Stratification of Primary GIST by Mitotic Index, Size and Site” table rather than stating whether the tumor is benign or malignant. Although they tell us that moderate or high risk should receive treatment, they will not characterize them as malignant.

Determining reportability for GIST is problematic because of the reluctance of pathologists to use the term "malignant" for GIST cases. If you can document the pathologist's terminology and case characteristics (e.g. treatment) that correspond to "malignant" for your registry as part of the registry's policies and procedures, you can report those cases as malignant.

The exception cited above in the SEER manual pertains to a clinical diagnosis with a negative pathology report. Normally, the negative pathology report would override the clinical diagnosis and the case would not be reportable. However, if the patient is treated for a malignancy in spite of the negative pathology, report the case.

 

N/A N/A 2014
20051094 Grade, Differentiation/Priorities: Which has priority, the differentiation or the nuclear grade for a liver biopsy histology described as "well differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma, nuclear grade 3/4"? For most sites, differentiation has priority over the nuclear grade when both are specified (excluding breast and kidney). Assign grade code 1 [well differentiated] to the example above. N/A N/A 2005
20071102 Systemic/Surgery Sequence--Breast: How is this field coded for a breast cancer patient treated with a lumpectomy followed by chemotherapy and then a mastectomy? Assign code 2 [Systemic therapy before surgery]. The code in Systemic Treatment/Surgery Sequence is related to the surgery coded in Surgery of Primary Site. For SEER, the mastectomy will be coded in the surgery field. The chemotherapy occurred before the mastectomy. N/A Systemic / Surgery Sequen 2007
20031176 EOD-Patholgic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Examined: How is this field coded when there is no lymph node count in the final pathology diagnosis and the gross description states "four possible lymph nodes are dissected"? See Description. Patient with kidney cancer underwent nephrectomy and lymph node removal. Final path diagnosis was Lymph nodes, pericaval biopsy, lymph nodes with no evidence of carcinoma. Per Gross description: Received in formalin as pericaval lymph node is 2.5 cm piece of fibrofatty tissue, from which four possible lymph nodes are dissected. For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the number of regional lymph nodes examined as 04. This is as accurate as possible for this situation. N/A N/A 2003
20150003

Reportability/Behavior: Is the following reportable, and if so, what is the histology code? Final Diagnosis (on multiple conjunctive excisions): Conjunctiva - primary acquired melanosis with atypia (see note). Note: "In all 3 specimens the process extends to the margins of excision. Complete extirpation is recommended (primary acquired melanosis with atypia is considered melanoma in situ).

Do not report primary acquired melanosis with atypia.

According to our expert pathologist consultant, "There has been a lot of debate in the literature about the diagnostic criteria, terminology, and natural history of primary acquired melanosis [PAM]. Your case comes down squarely on the main issue, which is whether PAM with atypia should be regarded as melanoma in situ. In most studies it appears that PAMs with no atypia or mild atypia do not progress to melanoma, and only a small percentage of those with severe atypia do so."  "PAM, even with atypia, is not melanoma in situ, and should not be reported."

For further information, see this article for a review of a large number of patients: Shields, Jerry A, Shields, Carol L, et al. Primary Acquired Melanosis of the Conjunctiva: Experience with 311 Eyes. Trans. Am Ophthalmol Soc 105:61-72, Dec 2007.

 

N/A Behavior 2015
20210051

Primary site/Biliary tract--Ampulla of Vater: What is the correct primary site code for intra-ampullary and periampullary adenocarcinoma, C241 (8144/3) or C249? See Discussion.

Ampulla, biopsy: High grade dysplasia with focal intramucosal carcinoma in a background of ulceration with acute and chronic inflammation.

Surgery pathology: Head of pancreas, duodenum, and distal stomach, pancreaticoduodenectomy-Ampulla, Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type, intra-ampullary and peri-ampullary (mixed type). Grade moderately differentiated, 1.5cm. Tumor invades into duodenal submucosa. Lymphovascular Invasion: Foci suspicious for lymphovascular invasion identified. Perineural Invasion: Present.

Synoptic report: Tumor Site Intra-ampullary and peri-ampullary (mixed type). Histologic Type Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type.

There is not enough information regarding site in radiology reports or operative report. CT-A/P/C:The patient's known ampullary mass is not well visualized on this exam. No significant intrahepatic or extrahepatic biliary ductal dilation is identified. The pancreatic duct is normal caliber.

Assign C241. Ampulla (C241) includes both periampullary and intra-ampullary.

 N/A Primary site 2021
20021106 Histology (Pre-2007)/Diagnostic Confirmation: What code is used to represent the histology that initially presents on uterine curettage as a hydatidiform mole and after pulmonary metastases develop a month later, the clinical diagnosis is "metastatic gestational trophoblastic disease"?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 9100/3 [Choriocarcinoma]. Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia includes the diagnosis of choriocarcinoma.

Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field to 8 [Clinical diagnosis only] based on the information above. However, if imaging, direct visualization, or another method identified the pulmonary metastases, then code the Diagnostic Confirmation accordingly.

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 N/A Diagnostic confirmation, Histology 2002