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 09:01 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20071104

Reportability--Bladder: Is a "high grade papillary urothelial neoplasm with focal superficial invasion into lamina propria" reportable?

Yes, this case is reportable. It is invasive (invasion into the lamina propria).

According to the WHO Classification of Urinary System Tumours, "Most pT1 cancers are papillary, low or high grade."

 Bladder N/A 2007
20021205 EOD-Extension--Melanoma: Is "erosion" synonymous with "ulceration" for melanoma cases?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

No, do not interpret the term "erosion" as a synonym for "ulceration" when coding the EOD-Extension field for melanoma. According to AJCC's melanoma curator, erosion is not necessarily the same as ulceration.

 Melanoma N/A 2002
20031001 EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Cervix: How do you code these fields when the cancer extended to the pelvic wall and there are periaortic LN metastases?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Assign extension code 65 for contiguous (direct) extension of tumor from the cervix to the pelvic wall. Assign extension code 85 only if the pelvic wall is involved with discontinuous extension from the cervix; i.e., the cervical tumor spread indirectly (through lymph or vascular channels) to the pelvic wall. Code the pelvic wall involvement in the Extension field and the periaortic lymph node involvement in the Lymph Node field. When the computer does the algorithm, it will look at the periaortic lymph nodes and report the summary stage as distant and the TNM stage group as IV because periarotic nodes are M1. Do not code the periaortic lymph nodes in both fields. This is stage IV, distant disease, due to the periaortic lymph node involvement (EOD lymph nodes code 6).

 Cervix Uteri N/A 2003
20130040

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned and what rule applies when a patient has a history of chronic myeloid leukemia diagnosed in 1993 followed by a diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia arising in chronic myelogenous leukemia, blast phase? See Discussion.

12/1993 Bone marrow biopsy: Chronic myeloid leukemia t(9;22) (q34;q11).

09/2011 Bone marrow biopsy: Abnormal cytogenetic & FISH support persistent involvement by chronic myelogenous leukemia.

12/2011 Peripheral blood, flow cytometry: Involvement by acute myeloid leukemia arising in chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML, blast phase, 30% blasts by manual diff.).

Is the 12/2011 diagnosis a new primary? If not, why don't Rules M8-M13 apply when the Heme DB Abstractor Notes section for CML indicates that when there is a chronic, accelerated and blast phase that develops later in the course of the disease, change the histology code to the more specific diagnosis?

 

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

This case should be accessioned as a multiple primary: chronic myelogenous leukemia t(9;22) (q34;q11) [9863/3] diagnosed in 1993 and acute myeloid leukemia [9861/3] diagnosed in 2011 per Rule M15.

Use the diagnosis date to determine the appropriate manual and rules to follow to determine the histologies for this case. To determine the histology of the 1993 diagnosis, use the ICD-O-2. The Heme Manual & DB will be used to determine the number of primaries and the histology of the 2011 diagnosis of AML.

Rules M8-M13 in the Heme Manual cannot be applied to this case because no transformation occurred. CML does not transform to another neoplasm.

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms N/A 2013
20120020

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be accessioned when a lumpectomy shows a single 6 mm "infiltrating mammary adenocarcinoma, histologic type: ductal (tubular)" tumor, and "peritumoral microscopic foci of solid type ductal carcinoma in situ"? See Discussion.

Per SINQ 20091117, tubular (ductal) carcinoma would be coded to 8211/3 [tubular]. However, in that case the tubular/ductal carcinoma is composed of a single tumor. In this case, the foci of DCIS were specifically stated to be peritumoral, and not a part of the infiltrating tubular carcinoma.

Are these microscopic foci of DCIS a separate primary per Rule M12 and SINQ 20110092 [two primaries are accessioned when one tumor is invasive and another is in situ, and histology codes differ at 1st, 2nd or 3rd numbers]? Does the size of the DCIS matter when there are two distinct histologies? Abstracting a second primary for these microscopic foci seems like over-reporting.

The following answers depend on what this pathologist means by "ductal (tubular)." According to the WHO classification, tubular is not a duct subtype. Check with the pathologist if possible to determine if the intended meaning is "tubular carcinoma" or "duct carcinoma".

If the pathologist uses the expression "ductal (tubular)" as an equivalent of "tubular carcinoma": Accession two primaries, a tubular carcinoma [8211/3] and a ductal carcinoma in situ, solid type [8230/2].

For cases diagnosed 2007 and later, the steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Determine the provisional histologies of these tumors in order to apply the Multiple Primary rules. Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a breast primary, use the Breast Histology rules to determine the histology codes because there are site specific rules for breast primaries.

Determine the histology of in situ carcinoma, solid type ductal carcinoma in situ. Start at Rule H1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the applicable Module. Code the more specific histologic term when the diagnosis is intraductal carcinoma and a type of intraductal carcinoma. Solid is a specific type of DCIS. The histology is 8230/2.

Determine the histology of the invasive carcinoma, tubular carcinoma. Start at Rule H10. Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified, Tubular carcinoma was the only type identified. The histology is 8211/3.

Go to the Breast MP rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual after determining the histology of each tumor. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS Module, Rule M4, because the patient has a single invasive tumor and separate foci of DCIS. These tumors have ICD-O-3 histology codes that are different at the third (xxx) number and are, therefore, multiple primaries.

If the pathologist uses the expression "ductal (tubular)" as an equivalent of "duct carcinoma": Accession a single primary, a duct carcinoma [8500/3].

For cases diagnosed 2007 and later, 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. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS Module, Rule M4 because the patient has a single invasive duct carcinoma and separate foci of solid type ductal carcinoma in situ. Multiple intraductal and/or duct carcinomas are a single primary. Table 1 identifies solid type as a specific type of intraductal carcinoma.

Go to the Breast Histology rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS ABSTRACTED AS A SINGLE PRIMARY Module, Rule H20. Code the invasive histology when both invasive and in situ tumors are present. Code the histology as 8500/3 [duct carcinoma].

 Breast N/A 2012
20120094

Reportability: Given that per the 2012 SEER Manual and SINQ 20120081 VIN II-III is no longer reportable, does this change exclusively apply to VIN II-III or does it also apply to AIN II-III, VAIN II-III, etc.? See Discussion.

VIN II-III was a reportable condition in the past. There was a SINQ note to that effect which is now gone from the system. Would it be better to reactivate that note and put a date reference in it so that there is documentation available to confirm this disease (and other IN II-III diseases) was previously reportable? If the note is not reactivated, could there be some indication in SINQ 20120081 of the prior reportability of this disease process?

For cases diagnosed 2021 or later, VIN II-III is reportable. Similarly, AIN II-III, VAIN II-III, etc. are reportable. For cases diagnosed 2021 or later, the primary resource for reportability is ICD-O-3.2. Squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II is listed in ICD-O-3.2 as 8077/2 making it reportable. This applies to the various sites of intraepithelial neoplasia grade II including anus, vulva, and vagina.

 N/A N/A 2012
20200004

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Lung: How are Primary Site and EOD Primary Tumor coded when a patient is diagnosed with four invasive tumors in the right lung that represent three separate primaries, but the not otherwise specified (NOS) tumor and one of the specific subtype/variants are in separate lobes? See Discussion.

There are four invasive tumors in the right lung:

Large cell undifferentiated carcinoma in the right lower lobe (8012/3, C343);

Adenocarcinoma, acinar-predominant in the right lower lobe (8551/3, C343) that was 0.7 cm in size and limited to the lung;

Mucinous adenocarcinoma in the right upper lobe (8253/3, C341) that was 0.9 cm and limited to the lung;

Adenocarcinoma, NOS also in the right upper lobe (8140/3, C341) that was 1 cm and limited to the lung.

The Lung M Rules confirm the large cell undifferentiated carcinoma is a separate primary from the three adenocarcinoma tumors (Rule M8). The acinar adenocarcinoma and mucinous adenocarcinoma tumors are separate primaries (Rule M6). The adenocarcinoma, NOS tumor is the same primary as both the acinar and mucinous are adenocarcinomas (Rule M7).

How is Primary Site coded for both the acinar and mucinous adenocarcinomas if they represent multiple tumors reported as a single primary (when compared to the adenocarcinoma, NOS tumor)?

Should the adenocarcinoma, NOS tumor also be included when coding EOD Primary Tumor for both the right lower lobe acinar adenocarcinoma and right upper lobe mucinous adenocarcinoma primaries? Further follow-up with the physician is not possible.

Abstract three primaries using 2018 Lung Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M6 and M8 as these are multiple synchronous tumors.

M6 (Subtypes in Column 3 of Table 3):

Adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant:

Primary Site: C343 (RLL)

EOD Primary Tumor: 300

Mucinous adenocarcinoma

Primary Site: C341 (RUL)

EOD Primary Tumor: 300

M8 (Separate rows in Table 3):

Large cell undifferentiated carcinoma:

Primary Site: C343 (RLL)

EOD Primary Tumor: 300

Note: The adenocarcinoma, NOS, along with the other subtypes, is on a different row than the large cell undifferentiated carcinoma and is already accounted for in Rule 6 as multiple synchronous tumors.

Do not include the adenocarcinoma, NOS in EOD Primary Tumor for the reportable primaries.

 Lung N/A 2020
20031195 EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: Is this field coded to 15 [Tumor identified by needle biopsy for elevated PSA] when it is unknown whether or not a TRUS was done? See Description. Patient was admitted for radiation therapy for prostate cancer. H&P states that patient had elevated PSA. PE showed benign feeling prostate. Stage is clinical T1c. There is no mention of whether or not TRUS had been done. For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: EOD extension code 15 is correct for this case example. When there is no other documentation available, the AJCC stage may be used to determine extension. Prostate N/A 2003
20071005 EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: When coding a prostate case with a date of diagnosis prior to 1995, is the EOD-Pathologic Extension-Prostate field left blank?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 1995, leave EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate field blank.

Code all EOD fields according to the EOD coding scheme in effect for that year of diagnosis.

 Prostate N/A 2007
20210002

Multiple Primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned for a patient diagnosed with therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome (t-MDS) (9920/3) in 2015 followed by a 2020 diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome, NOS (MDS, NOS) (9989/3)? See Discussion.

Patient has a history of B-cell lymphoma with multimodality treatment in 2002. Lab work in 2015 showed multilineage dysplasia leading to a diagnosis of therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome. Patient presents in 2020 for a bone marrow biopsy now showing low-grade MDS. The MDS appears to have the same multilineage dysplasia previously identified.

MDS, NOS is not listed in the Heme DB as a possible transformation of t-MDS, nor is it listed as a Same Primary for t-MDS. Likewise, t-MDS is not listed as a more specific myelodysplastic syndrome, a transformation of MDS NOS, or a Same Primary as MDS, NOS.

The first M rule that applies to this case is M15, and the Multiple Primaries Calculator indicates that the MDS, NOS should be a new primary.

Abstract separate primaries using Rule M15 of the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms (Heme) Manual. The Heme Database states: Excluded from this category are progression of myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) and evolution of primary MDS or primary MDS/MPN to acute myeloid leukemia (AML); in each of these latter cases evolution to AML is part of the natural history of the primary disease and it may be impossible to distinguish natural progression from therapy-related changes. There is no indication of transformation.

 Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms N/A 2021