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: 10/08/2026 04:35 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20031079 Primary Site: Should we code C80.9 [unknown primary] or code C34.9 [Lung] according to the terminology, "most likely site of origin is lung"? See Description.

We have a case of metastatic keratinizing squamous cell ca. The work-up shows small densities in the lung that may represent inflammatory or chronic changes. No other imaging that shows origin. Physical exam states 2 months of left axillary mass. H/O SCCA of the skin involving chest wall.

Path reads: Metastatic w/d keratinizing SCCA. This lesion almost undoubtedly represents mets. The most likely site of origin is lung followed by esophageal primary or head & neck. The final discharge states, "Metastatic SCCA to Left Axilla".

Code the primary site according to the physicians' opinion, especially the treatment decision. If the physician treats the patient for a lung primary, code primary site as lung. If the primary site cannot be determined, code C80.9.

According to the pathologist, the most likely primary site for the example above is lung. The final discharge diagnosis does not reflect the pathologist's opinion, and does not contradict it either. If there is no conflicting medical opinion, code primary site to C34.9 [lung].

 N/A Primary site 2003
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.

 N/A N/A 2013
20000277 Ambiguous Terminology: Should SEER's lists of ambiguous terminology be modified to reflect how pathologists and radiologists actually use these terms? See discussion. Pathologists and radiologists say the term "suggestive" is used to describe a lesion that may be malignant, and the term "suspicious" is not used to describe lesions that may be malignant. According to the physician director of our Breast Center the FDA governs the use of terminology, and the term "highly suggestive" instead of "highly suspicious" must be used if there is a greater chance that a mass is malignant.

We recognize that the way clinicians and registrars speak is often different, and that the differences vary from region to region.

Our Medical Advisory Board reviewed the lists of ambiguous terminology before they were included in the third edition of the SEER EOD and the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2004. Since that time, specific terminology has been mandated for describing mammography results. We know some of these terms are discrepant with our ambiguous terminology list.

As of 2007, the standard setters (CoC, NPCR, SEER and CCCR) all use the same ambiguous terminology list. Changes to the list must be approved by the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee.

 N/A N/A 2000
20010124 First Course Treatment: What code is used to represent each treatment modality field when there is no indication that a particular modality of treatment was recommended or started? Code the individual treatment fields to 0 or 00 [None] when the modality is not addressed in the treatment plan (or when a treatment plan is lacking) and there is no indication that a particular modality of treatment was recommended or started. N/A First course treatment 2001
20031175

First Course Therapy: Are radio immune labeled antibodies, such as Bexxar [Tositum--I-131] coded as immunotherapy, radiotherapy, or experimental therapy?

Agents such as Bexxar or Zevalin are radioisotopes and coded as radiation. These agents destroy cancer cells with radiation. N/A First course treatment 2003
20071007 MP/H Rules/Histology: In the absence of a tissue diagnosis, should the histology field be coded based on the findings of a suspicious cytology or a CT scan that clinically confirmed the diagnosis? See Discussion. Cytology (brushings at ERCP) which are highly suspicious of adenocarcinoma. A CT of the abdomen performed the next day shows a mass, most likely Klatskin tumor. Can the histology be coded to Klatskin tumor [8162/3] based on the CT findings?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology to 8162/3 [Klatskin tumor] using the histology from the CT. This case is confirmed clinically based on the CT. It cannot be accessioned based on suspicious cytology.

Rule H8 in the 2007 Histology Coding Rules for Other Sites provides instructions for coding histology when the pathology report and cytology report are not available.

 N/A Histology 2007
20021152 Primary Site: Can we assume the primary site for "chordoma" is soft tissue if the bone is not stated to be involved?

Default the coding of the Primary Site field for chordomas to the bone where the tumor began in the body if the primary site is not clearly stated to be soft tissue. Bone is often the primary site for chordomas.

Based on advice from pathologist consultants: This is one of those situations where we can be quite comfortable with a default, in this case to bone, not soft tissue. Chordoma is a tumor arising in the nucleus pulposis, presumably from remnants of notochord - thus its exclusive origin is in the sacrococcygeal region, spheno-occipital region, and vertebral bodies, otherwise known collectively as the axial skeleton. Any "chordoma" in soft tissue (with no relationship to axial skeleton) is probably a myxoid chondrosarcoma or parachordoma (extremely rare).

 N/A Primary site 2002
20031129 Primary Site: How is this field coded for cholangiocarcinoma involving the intrapancreatic bile duct? Code the primary site as C24.0 [Extrahepatic bile duct, includes Common bile duct] for a cholagiocarcinoma originating in the common bile duct. A portion of the common bile duct is within the head of the pancreas: The intrapancreatic segment of the common bile duct. N/A Primary site 2003
20100024

Histology: How is this field coded for a perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm (PEComa) of uncertain malignant potential that is malignant based on the presence of metastases? See Discussion.

In 11/2006 the patient had surgery for a 6cm mass in the RUQ arising in the falciform ligament. The pathologic final diagnosis was: Perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm (PEComa) of uncertain malignant potential. In 10/2009 a liver biopsy showed metastatic perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm.

Assign histology code 8005/3 [malignant clear cell tumor]. According to our expert pathology consultant, this is the best histology code available at this time for the occasional tumor which is designated as malignant. The appearance of metastatic disease clearly defines this case as malignant.

 N/A Histology 2010
20150027

Date of diagnosis--Diagnostic confirmation: How are the diagnosis date and diagnostic confirmation coded when the pathology (needle biopsy followed by resection) reports GIST, NOS and the physician subsequently states this is a malignant GIST and treats the patient for a malignancy? See Discussion.

Pathologists rarely diagnose a GIST as a malignant tumor. Per the AJCC, GISTs encompass a continuum in terms of biologic potential, with larger more mitotically active tumors landing on the "histologically sarcomatous" or malignant end of the spectrum. Because the pathologists generally do not categorize these tumors as benign or malignant, the judgement is typically made by the clinician in light of all the clinical and pathologic findings. Unless there are obvious distant metastases, the clinician usually decides whether a GIST is malignant and treats the patient as such.

In the case above, the patient underwent a gastric biopsy on 04/10/2014 that showed GIST. The subsequent resection on 04/12/2014 showed a 4.5 cm GIST, spindle cell type with 6 mitoses/5 square mm. The resection pathology report does not indicate the GIST is malignant, but does identify a large tumor with mitotic activity. After reviewing the evidence in this case, the clinician calls this a malignant GIST on 04/29/2014 and starts the patient on Gleevec.

Although neither the biopsy nor the resection call this a malignant tumor, should the date the GIST was first diagnosed (biopsy on 04/10/2014) be used to code the diagnosis date, since this is the date the tumor (ultimately felt to be malignant) was diagnosed? If the diagnosis date is coded as the date malignant GIST was first mentioned (04/29/2014), this would exclude surgery as treatment for this tumor.

Would this be a histologic diagnosis because the tumor was histologically confirmed to be GIST? Or must this be a clinical diagnosis because the diagnosis of malignancy was only made clinically (by the clinician's review of the clinical and pathologic findings)?

Code the diagnosis date for this case as 04/10/2014. Code the diagnostic confirmation as histologically confirmed. The clinician is using all of the information available to determine the diagnosis, including the biopsy and resection.

N/A Date of diagnosis, Diagnostic confirmation 2015