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 12:24 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20140087

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Ampulla of vater: Is this a new primary? Patient has intramucosal adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma of the ampula of vater in Sept. of 2011. In May of 2012, patient has another ampullary adenoma with intraepithelial carcinoma (pTis) and an area suspicious for invasion. This is coded 8263/3.

Rule M14, Multiple in situ and/or malignant polyps are a single primary, precedes rule M15, An invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days after diagnosis is a multiple primary, per the MP rules for 'Other sites',

Rule M14 applies. Abstract this case as a single primary.

N/A N/A 2014
20071043 Multiplicity Counter: Are in situ tumors diagnosed more than 60 days after invasive tumors of the same site and histology included in the Multiplicity Counter? If an in situ tumor following an invasive tumor is a single primary according to the multiple primary rules for that particular site, include the in situ and the invasive tumors in the multiplicity counter. N/A N/A 2007
20240024

Reportability/Histology: Is angiomyxoma (this includes borderline or behavior code /1 cases) of the soft tissue reportable?

Can you provide us with coding guidelines for angiomyxoma for when its reportable or not reportable?

Do not report angiomyxoma. ICD-O-3.2 assigns 8841/0 to this benign tumor. This includes superficial and deep (aggressive) angiomyxoma.

 N/A Histology 2024
20021129 Histology/Date of Diagnosis--Hematopoietic, NOS: What code is used to represent histology for a June 2001 diagnosis of "myelodysplastic syndrome" followed by a September 2001 bone marrow biopsy diagnosis of "myelodysplasia evolving into an acute leukemic state"?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

Code the Histology field to 9989/3 [myelodysplastic syndrome] and the Date of Diagnosis field to June 2001.

For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.

 N/A Date of diagnosis, Histology 2002
20000502 EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes: Can the AJCC TNM/Stage be used to help code these fields when there is limited text information in the medical record that describes the tumor involvement?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Yes, this staging information can be used to help code the SEER EOD fields but only if a physician does the TNM/Stage at the time of diagnosis and there is limited text information that describes tumor involvement.

 N/A N/A 2000
20031096 Radiation: How would this field be coded for treatment with quadramet [radioactive samarium]? See Description. Paitent is receiving quadramet for treatment of lung metastases. Code Quadramet in the RX Summ-Radiation field as 3 [Radioisotopes]. Quadramet is a radioisotope used to palliate bone pain. The instructions in the SEER manual state: "Record all radiation that is given, even if it is palliative." N/A Radiation Therapy 2003
20021133

First Course Treatment--All Sites: The patient has undergone part of the planned first course of treatment when a metastatic deposit is identified. If the patient continues with the planned first course of treatment, should the modalities of treatment given after the metastatic deposit is discovered be included in the coding of the first course of cancer-directed treatment fields?

Yes, those modalities should be counted as part of first course of cancer-directed treatment if the patient continues with the planned first course. For example, if patient has the originally planned type of surgery, radiation, or drug protocol, then code the given treatment as first course.

Caution: It is not a change in the treatment plan if the drugs are changed but the action of the drugs remains the same. This is still first course. However, if the treatment is changed from a chemotherapy drug to a hormonal drug following the discovery of the mets, do not code the hormonal therapy as first course.

 N/A First course treatment 2002
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
20000532 EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined: Should a lymph node biopsy be counted in these fields or are these fields for lymph node dissections only? See discussion. Example: 1) Lymph node biopsy: adenocarcinoma. 2) Lymph node dissection: 4/15 regional lymph nodes positive for adenocarcinoma.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

These fields record the number of regional lymph nodes examined pathologically whether from a biopsy or from a dissection. If the single lymph node biopsied was a regional lymph node, code the Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive field to 05 and the Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Examined field to 16. If the lymph node biopsied was a distant node, code these fields to 04 and 15 respectively.

 N/A N/A 2000
20071129

Reportability/Histology: Is a case reportable if the Final Diagnosis in a pathology report indicates a non reportable diagnosis but the Diagnosis Comment on the same report indicates a non reportable diagnosis followed by a reportable diagnosis in parenthesis? See Discussion.

08/13/2007 polypectomy final diagnosis: tubulovillous adenoma with severe epithelial atypia. Dx Comment (on same path) ...atypia including focal cribriform glandular architecture (carcinoma in situ).

This case is reportable as carcinoma in situ. The histology code is 8263/2 [adenocarcinoma in situ in a tubulovillous adenoma].

According to our pathologist consultant, a "comment" in a path report is a part of the diagnosis - it often elaborates on or clarifies the diagnosis. Placing [carcinoma in situ] in the comment, even in parentheses, indicates that is the appropriate diagnosis for our purposes.

 N/A Histology 2007