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 05:24 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20071064

Reportability--Breast: Is a final path diagnosis of "phyllodes tumor, borderline (malignant, low grade)" reportable if the comment states "Features favor the diagnosis of a borderline phyllodes tumor (or also called malignant phyllodes tumor of low grade)"?

No, borderline phyllodes tumors (PT) are not reportable. The ICD-O-3 code is 9020/1. According to the WHO Classification of Tumours of the Breast and Female Genital Organs, borderline PT's are also called low grade malignant PT's.

 Breast N/A 2007
20180088

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Prostate: How many primaries are abstracted and what M Rule applies when a patient is diagnosed with prostate adenocarcinoma in 2014, followed by liver mass biopsy showing neuroendocrine carcinoma, small cell type of the prostate in 2018? See Discussion.

The patient has a history of prostate adenocarcinoma with lymph node metastases, status post prostatectomy and treatment by Lupron in 2014. The most recent prostate serum antigen measurement (April 2018) was normal. CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis revealed new hypodense liver lesions, a slightly enlarging lung right lower lobe nodule, and enlarging lobular mass in the prostatectomy bed. The core liver biopsy contains areas of metastatic tumor with a differential diagnosis on pathology of high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the prostate (small cell type), which may have been seen in association with prostate adenocarcinoma, or metastatic small cell carcinoma of a different site.

Clinically, the physician impression is that this represents metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The Solid Tumor Rules note that the Multiple Primary Rules are not used for tumor(s) described as metastases. However, SINQ 20130221 indicates that, at least historically, these would have been accessioned as multiple primaries (histology 8140 & 8041 per Rule M10). Does the previous SINQ note still apply to these types of cases, and if so how would one know to move beyond the initial note indicating metastases are not new primaries?

The guidance provided in SINQ 20130221 still applies. Accession two primaries, adenocarcinoma [8140/3] of the prostate [C619], followed by small cell (neuroendocrine) carcinoma [8041/3] of the prostate [C619] for each of the examples given per Rule M10 of the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules, Prostate. In each case, the second histology (because it is not adenocarcinoma) is a new prostate primary. Small cell carcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma are not adenocarcinomas. As a result, they are not covered by Rule M3.

For the case described in this SINQ submission, based on the findings of a lobular mass in the prostate bed, this is a second primary (there is residual prostatic tissue).

This is unchanged from the 2007 Multiple Primaries Rules for Other Sites.

 Prostate N/A 2018
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
20230009

Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Vulva: How many primaries are accessioned when a 2023 diagnosis of keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) (8071/3) of the vulva follows a previous diagnosis of nonkeratinizing SCC (8072/3) of the vulva and the timing rule (M12) does not apply?  See Discussion.

Table 19: Vulva Histologies of the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules does not include entries for either keratinizing or nonkeratinizing squamous cell carcinoma in the “Squamous cell carcinoma, NOS” row. However, these are two distinctly different histologies per the ICD-O-3.2.

All other Solid Tumor Rules schemas include an M Rule instructing one to abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are two or more different subtypes/variants in Column 3 of the Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtype/Variants Table for the schema (e.g., Rule M6 for Lung). The timing of these tumors is stated to be irrelevant. The Notes confirm the tumors may be subtypes/variants of the same or different NOS histologies and tumors in column 3 are all distinctly different histologies (even if they are in the same row). However, the 2023 Other Sites schema appears to be missing this rule.

Should these distinctly different histologies be accessioned as separate primaries? Is an M Rule missing from the Other Sites schema to address distinctly different histologies?

Table 19 is based on WHO 5th Ed Tumors of vulva and squamous cell variants, keratinizing and non-keratinizing, are no longer recommended and are excluded from the 5th Ed. HPV related terminology is now preferred for these neoplasms.

Per consultation with our GYN expert pathologist, based on the information provided, this is likely a single tumor that was not completely excised in the original biopsy. A new tumor in the same site would not appear within 8 months. If you cannot confirm two separate/non-contiguous tumors were present, abstract a single primary per M1. As for histology, the tumor showed both keratinizing and non-keratinizing features and HPV status is unclear. Per our expert, code to SCC 8070/3—keratinization or lack of does not change treatment or prognosis.

Even If there is proof of separate/non-contiguous tumors, our expert still feels this is a single primary coded to SCC 8070/3. Treatment does not differ by keratinization or HPV status. Coding two primaries would be incorrect and inflate incidence rates.

Per our expert, this is an unusual occurrence. The rules cover 85% of cases but there will always be situations that do not fit a rule. This case is an example of that.  A new GYN specific Solid Tumor Rules module is under development and a rule to address this situation could be included.

 Vulva N/A 2023
20010117 Grade, Differentiation--Prostate: Has SEER officially changed the conversion code for Gleason score 7 to poorly differentiated [grade 3]?

For cases diagnosed prior to 2003, there has been no change in SEER standards for converting a Gleason score to a grade. As described in the SEER Program Code Manual, Gleason score 7 is converted to moderately differentiated [grade 2]. ONLY if the pathology report lists moderately poorly differentiated IN ADDITION to the Gleason's score 7, would you code the case as 3.

For cases diagnosed in 2003 and later, please see question number 20031123.

 Prostate N/A 2001
20081066 Multiplicity Counter/Type of Multiple Tumors--Breast: How should these fields be coded when path shows a 1.2 cm infiltrating carcinoma with lobular features and several foci of infiltrating lobular carcinoma [7 foci described as multifocal], 1 large focus, and numerous foci of LCIS and CIS with lobular and ductal features? Should we count the foci or separate tumor nodules, ignore them, or code unknown values for these fields? See Discussion.

Scenario: 10/17/07: Right axilla soft tissue bx - infiltrating mammary ca with lobular features arising within apparent breast tissue present within axilla. Tumor size 1.2 cm. 11/3/07: Right breast, reexcision lumpectomy - Several foci of infiltrating lobular CA. (2) foci & (5) foci within specimen (multifocal). (1) large focus also present. No lymphovascular invasion identified. Numerous foci LCIS. Pleomorphic LCIS & CIS with lobular and ductal features. Margins free of invasion however margins diffusely involved with LCIS.

When do you count foci or separate tumor nodules, when do you ignore them, and when do you code unknown values for these fields? Coding instruction 3b states, "When the tumor is multifocal or multicentric and the foci of tumor are not measured, code as 99." Instruction 4b states, "Use code 01 when there is a single tumor with separate foci of tumor." Finally, instruction 6b states, "Use code 99 when the tumor is described as multifocal or multicentric and the number of tumors is not given," which seems to imply that if we know the number of tumors, we would code that number.

Multiplicity Counter: Use instruction 4b. Since there is one measured tumor and the foci were not measured, code the multiplicity counter 01 [One tumor only].

Type of Multiple Tumors: Code Type of multiple tumors 00 [Single tumor].

 Breast N/A 2008
20010156 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: Patient diagnosed with two lumps in same breast, different quadrants at same time. One was ductal carcinoma, cribriform type; the other was ductal carcinoma. How many primaries do we code? See discussion. If the breast cancer had been diagnosed in 2000 we would have coded this case as one primary, code to higher ductal ca. For a 2001 or later diagnosis, should this be coded as two primaries?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code this case as two primaries if the tumors are separate. Separate tumors have clear (negative) margins. If the tumors are not separate, code as one primary.

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.

 Breast N/A 2001
20091066 Multiplicity Counter--Lung: How is this field coded when there is no evidence of the primary tumor? See Discussion. Patient presented with large mediastinal mass. CT showed no intraparenchymal lung tumor. Biopsy of mediastinal mass revealed adenocarcinoma consistent with lung primary. Code Multiplicity Counter to code 99 [Unknown]. Lung N/A 2009
20020018 EOD-Lymph Nodes/EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined--Cervix: What codes are used to represent these fields for a cervix primary when the only information on lymph nodes is a CT of the pelvis showing "pelvic adenopathy" (no surgery was done)? Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 9 [unknown]. Code the Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive field to 98 [No nodes examined] and the Lymph Nodes Examined to 00 [No nodes examined] because there was no resection of the primary organs. Adenopathy, NOS, per SEER guidelines, is not coded as lymph node involvement Cervix Uteri, Lymph nodes N/A 2002
20091114 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: Would a left chest wall mass excision stated to be ductal carcinoma consistent with a breast primary and, "compatible with either local recurrence or potentially a metastasis" be a new primary per the MP/H rules? See Discussion. Patient underwent mastectomy in 1986 for infiltrating ductal carcinoma of left breast. Excision of left chest wall mass in March 2009 showed ductal carcinoma consistent with breast primary. The pathology report COMMENT stated it would be compatible with either local recurrence or a metastasis. The patient's primary breast carcinoma material is not available for direct comparison and the MP/H rules instruct us to ignore metastasis. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the MP/H rules do not apply to metastasis. If there is no further information available for this case, the MP/H rules do not apply to the 2009 diagnosis. Breast N/A 2009