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
20081046 MP/H Rules--Corpus uteri: How is histology coded for an endometrial tumor described as an "endometrioid adenocarcinoma with prominent squamous metaplasia"?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Endometrioid adenocarcinoma with squamous metaplasia is coded 8570 [Adenocarcinoma with squamous metaplasia]. This falls under the Histology Coding Rules for Other Sites, rule H17. The code for Endometroid adenocarcinoma is 8380. The code for Adenocarcinoma with squamous metaplasia is 8570. The histology with the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code is Adenocarcinoma with squamous metaplasia -- 8570.

 Corpus uteri N/A 2008
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
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
20190037

Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be abstracted for simultaneously diagnosed non-contiguous invasive duct carcinoma and mucinous carcinoma? Does rule M12 apply since the two histologies are on different rows of Table 3 of the Breast Solid Tumor Rules? See Discussion.

Core biopsy of left breast at 2:00: Invasive ductal carcinoma, Nottingham score 6/9.

Core biopsy of left breast at 4:00: Invasive mucinous carcinoma (variant of ductal carcinoma), Nottingham score 5/9.

Post neo-adjuvant mastectomy: Main (largest tumor): Invasive ductal carcinoma, upper outer quadrant grade 2. Secondary tumor: mucinous carcinoma, grade 1 at 4:00.

Abstract multiple primaries when separate, non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in Table 3 of the Breast Solid Tumor Rules. Use Rule M14 as each row in the table reflects a distinctly different histology, in this case, invasive ductal carcinoma (8500) and mucinous carcinoma (8480).

 Breast N/A 2019
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
20110092

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned when a pathology specimen reveals one tumor with invasive mucinous carcinoma [8480/3] and a second tumor with in situ ductal carcinoma, solid and cribriform types [8523/2]?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession two primaries, invasive mucinous carcinoma [8480/3] and in situ ductal carcinoma, solid and cribriform types [8523/2].

The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Go to the Breast MP rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual after determining the histology of each tumor (8480/3 and 8523/2).

Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M4. These tumors have ICD-O-3 histology codes that are different at the second (xxx) and third (xxx) number and are, therefore, multiple primaries.

 Breast N/A 2011
20091097

Multiple Primaries--Lymphoma: How many primaries should be abstracted if DLBCL (9680/3) and Mantle Cell Lymphoma (9673/3) occur at the same time in different lymph nodes? How would Sequence be coded if the case is multiple primaries?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:It is important to note for this case that the two different types of NHL occurred in different lymph nodes; one type in one lymph node and the other type in another lymph node.

Use the fold-out table to determine single vs multiple primaries. According to the table, 9673/3 and 9680/3 would be two primaries no matter which of these was "first."

Assign the lower sequence number to the primary with the worse prognosis when two primaries are diagnosed simultaneously. Base the prognosis decision on the primary site, histology, and extent of disease for each of the primaries. If there is no difference in prognosis, the sequence numbers may be assigned in any order.

For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, 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.

 Lymphoma N/A 2009
20160005

Reportability--Skin: Is this a reportable skin cancer? See discussion.

Patient had a skin biopsy and this is the interpretation: NASAL SUPRATIP: INVASIVE BASAL CELL CARCINOMA OF SKIN WITH NEUROENDOCRINE DIFFERENTIATION

NOTE: The deep margin is positive for tumor; peripheral margins negative for tumor. The tumor has a basaloid appearance with focal areas appearing slightly squamoid, and it demonstrates myxoid/mucinous retraction from the stroma. It does not demonstrate peripheral palisading of cells within tumor nests and has nuclear chromatin which suggests neuroendocrine differentiation. Mitotic rate is more brisk than typical basal cell carcinoma as well. The differential diagnosis includes basal cell carcinoma with or without neuroendocrine differentiation, basal cell carcinoma with squamous differentiation, basaloid squamous cell carcinoma, Merkel cell carcinoma and metastatic small cell carcinoma. The tumor is further characterized per immunostains x 9 (controls work well). Tumor cells are positive for Ber EP4 and p63; focally positive for Chromagranin; while negative for EMA, CK20, CK7, TTF-1, CD56 and Synaptophysin. Overall, the staining pattern supports basal cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation.

Basal cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation of the skin is not reportable to SEER.

In this case, the pathologist discussed several possible options, and determined that the final diagnosis is basal cell ca with neuroendocrine diff based at least partially on the immunostains.

Skin N/A 2016