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 03:40 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20160023

Grade/Histology--Digestive System: What is the grade for neuroendocrine tumor (NET) or neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) of gastrointestinal morphologies described as: 1) NET G1 (M8240/3) and NET G2 (M8249/3) or 2) neuroendocrine carcinoma, low grade (M8240/3) and neuroendocrine carcinoma, well differentiation (M8240/3) and neuroendocrine carcinoma, moderate differentiation (M8249/3)? The SEER Instructions for Coding Grade for 2014+, Coding for Solid Tumors section, #3 state: Code the grade shown below (6th digit) for specific histologic terms that imply a grade. NET and NEC are not included in the specific terms.

You may code grade as follows.

Grade 1 – NET G1 (M8240/3)

Grade 2 – NET G2 (M8249/3)

Grade 1 – neuroendocrine carcinoma, low grade (M8240/3) or neuroendocrine carcinoma, well differentiation (M8240/3)

Grade 2 – neuroendocrine carcinoma, moderate differentiation (M8249/3)

N/A N/A 2016
20091087 Reportability--Appendix: Is a metastatic low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm reportable if the pathologist states that it is a borderline tumor of the appendix? See Discussion. Low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm; Lt ovary, cul-de-sac, omentum, and small bowel: Metastatic low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm. Per pathologist this is a borderline tumor of the appendix. Borderline tumors (other than brain and CNS) are not reportable to SEER. In the case of borderline tumors, the term "metastatic" does not automatically make them reportable. When the "metastatic deposits" are also borderline, the case is not reportable. For this case in particular, the "metastases" are actually (benign) implants and not malignant or invasive mets. N/A N/A 2009
20031042 Histology (Pre-2007): How are the following four histologies coded: 1) Adenocarcinoma with focal mucinous adenocarcinoma; 2) Adenocarcinoma with focal areas of bronchioalveolar adenocarcinoma, 3) Mixed infiltrating duct and focal medullary carcinoma, and 4) Mixed infiltrating duct and focal medullary carcinoma? See Description.

1. How do we code colon: Adenocarcinoma with focal Mucinous adenoca? 8140/3 or 8255/3?

2. A lung lesion with predominant adenoca with focal areas of bronchioalveolar adenoca? 8140/3 or 8255/3?

3. Mixed infiltrating duct carcinoma and medullary ca? 8510/3 or 8255/3?

4. Mixed infil duct ca and focal medulary ca? 8510/3 or 8255/3?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

1. 8140/3, Adenocarcinoma. Mucinous has a specific rule (see sinq 20010075): Include the mucinous component only if it is 50% or more of the tumor. "Focal" is not a majority term.

2. 8250/3, Bronchiolo-alveolar adenoca. Code the more specific histology.

3. 8523/3, Infiltrating duct mixed with other types of carcinoma. Combination of infiltrating duct and another type of carcinoma.

4. 8523/3, Infiltrating duct mixed with other types of carcinoma. Combination of infiltrating duct and another type of carcinoma.

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 Histology 2003
20150013

Surgery of Primary Site: What is the most extensive, invasive or definitive surgical procedure when the second surgical procedure performed has a lower surgery code? See discussion.

 

Examples

8/xx/13 TURBT with path specimen (27): Papillary Urothelial Carcinoma, HG    9/xx/13 Bladder fulgeration w/o path specimen (12)

5/xx/14 Segmental Mastectomy(24): Ductal carcinoma with <1mm marg    6/xx/14 Breast Re-excision (23): Residual ductal carcinoma 1.5mm, marg neg

The code in Surgical Procedure of Primary Site should correspond to the most invasive, extensive, or definitive surgery when the patient has multiple surgical procedures of the primary site even if there is no residual tumor found in the pathologic specimen from the more extensive surgery. The timing of the procedures does not affect the code choice.

Assign code 27 for the first example. Assign code 24 for the second example.

N/A Surgery of Primary Site 2015
20041048 Grade, Differentiation: How is this field coded when a pathologist notes the grade of a tumor is "mid-differentiated"? Code Grade, Differentiation to 2 [Moderately differentiated]. N/A N/A 2004
20000509 EOD-Extension--Small Intestine: How do we interpret a pathology description of "extending through serosa and forming masses in the periserosal tissue" for a jejunum primary?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 55 [Invasion of/through serosa and adjacent connective tissue]. The description states the tumor extended through the serosa into periserosal tissue. The periserosal tissue in this case refers to adjacent connective tissue lying exterior to the intestinal wall and not the (sub)serosal tissue that lies exterior to the muscularis but inferior to the serosa. Analyze each case individually since pathologists are not consistent when using the above terminology.

 N/A N/A 2000
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
20021056

Histology (Pre-2007)/Terminology: Are "pattern", "architecture", and "architectural pattern" terms that indicate a majority of tumor?

For tumors diagnosed 2004 to 2006:

The terminology "Architectural pattern: ____________," when used in the final pathology diagnosis, indicates a subtype that can be coded. This type of format in a pathology report is based on a College of American Pathologists (CAP) protocol. Disregard "pattern" and "architecture" when not used in accordance with the CAP protocol. See www.cap.org for cancer protocols.

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 Histology 2002
20130193 Sex: How is sex coded for a transsexual diagnosed with a testicular primary? See Discussion. The Physical Exam states patient is male. There is a note that the patient is transsexual. There is no indication that the orchiectomy was part of gender reassignment surgery. Code sex to 1 [male]. When the natal sex is known, code that over transsexual. N/A Sex 2013
20081026 MP/H rules/Multiple primaries: Is a 2007 cytology diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in bile duct a new primary for a patient with a 2005 diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of gallbladder? See Discussion.

A case abstracted for an adenocarcinoma of gallbladder (C23.9) in 2005. In 2007, cytology diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in bile duct(C24.0). Oncologist calls this recurrence. There is no pathologist statement of recurrence.

Using Other Sites multiple primary rules, rule M10 indicates this is multiple primaries. Sequence 01 dx in 2005 and sequence 02 dx in 2007. Is this correct? There is no statement of a primary tumor; the MP/H rules talk in terms of mass, lesion, tumor in a primary site.

 For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract the 2007 bile duct diagnosis as a new primary unless it is described as metastatic. N/A N/A 2008