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 18:03 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20010033

Grade, Differentiation--Breast:

1) If Van Nuys nuclear grade 2 is the only grade given for an in situ breast primary, would it be coded as a 3-component system (e.g., 2/3 = 3)?

2) Is there a way of determining grade if only the total Van Nuys Prognostic index score is given (e.g., score 7/9)?

1. Code Van Nuys grade 2 as code 2 [Grade 2] in the Grade, Differentiation field.

2. Code Van Nuys score of 7 as 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable] in the Grade, Differentiation field.

Currently, there is no conversion from the total Van Nuys score to grade because "grade" represents only one of the three Van Nuys factors that make up the total score. The other factors are tumor size and margin. The grade represents from 1 to 3 points within the total Van Nuys score. The total score can be between 3 and 9.

 Breast N/A 2001
20081114

Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is hygroma reportable? See Discussion.

Benign brain guidelines indicate that named tumors that have been assigned an ICD-O-3 code are reportable. However, per I&R: "Most cystic hygromas (9173/0) are fetal malformations and occur in patients less than two years old. If this patient was an adult, they are primarily treated with surgery. Hygroma (used in a general sense) is a response to trauma (i.e., subdural hematoma) and as such, is not a "new growth" and would not be reportable either as a cyst or as a neoplasm. Unless the patient had some sort of operation, I'd hesitate to include the case as a reportable benign tumor."

How is the cancer registrar to distinguish between reportable and non-reportable hygromas? Example: Brain MRI showed diffuse cerebral volume loss and incidental bilateral frontal subdural hygromas (histology code 9173/0).

Reference: I&R 14825

Hygromas are not reportable. This instruction will be added to the next revision of the benign brain rules.

According to an expert in the field, hygromas are not neoplastic. Hygromas are cystic dilations of a localized subarachnoid or subdural accumulation of clear fluid related to an excess accumulation of CSF, typically related to an old hemorrhage that somehow prevents reabsorption of CSF.

 Brain and CNS N/A 2008
20100106 Reportability-Bladder: Is a case with a cytology diagnosis, "positive for malignancy, favor low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma" reportable if the diagnosis on a subsequent bladder biopsy showed only "urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential"? See Discussion.

On 11/23/09 the patient had urine cytology diagnosis "positive for malignancy, favor low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma." On 12/28/09, the bladder biopsy showed "urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential."

SINQ 20081086 only addresses the example of a positive FNA/biopsy followed by a negative resection. Would the previous decision hold for this case when a positive fine needle aspiration biopsy is followed by only a negative biopsy?

This case is not reportable. The pathology proved the cytology to be incorrect. The pathologic diagnosis is the "gold standard." When cytology and pathology disagree, use pathology.

Bladder N/A 2010
20021132

EOD-Extension: The medical record lacks a clear statement that metastatic workup was complete. A metastatic deposit is identified within 4 months of diagnosis and while the patient is undergoing first course of treatment. How do you code the EOD-Extension field?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

In coding the EOD-Extension field, ignore metastasis that is discovered after the initial workup is completed regardless of the timeframe from diagnosis date until the date the metastatic deposit was discovered. The metastasis is progression of disease.

Any of the following represents progression of disease. Do not code the subsequently identified metastatic involvement in the EOD:

1) The metastatic workup was complete and treatment started before the procedure was done that found the metastatic involvement.

2) A procedure, such as a scan, was negative initially and a repeat of that procedure is now positive.

3) The treatment plan is developed for a localized disease process.

If you are unable to determine whether the newly discovered metastasis represents progression or is part of the initial workup, regard the metastasis as progression. Do not code the metastasis in the EOD-Extension field.

 N/A N/A 2002
20021137 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Soft Tissue: Does SEER agree that one primary of the soft tissues of pelvis [C49.5] should be reported when a pathologic diagnosis for bilateral herniorrhaphies is "right and left inguinal hernias with low grade spindle cell sarcoma"?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Yes. This is one primary and should be coded to C49.5 [Connective, subcutaneous and other soft tissue of pelvis]. According to Rule A in ICD-O-3, the type of tumor ("sarcoma") indicates origin from a particular tissue, resulting in the primary site code of C49.5 [Inguinal region, NOS] for this sarcoma.

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 N/A 2002
20160050

Reportability--Appendix: Is a mucinous cystic neoplasm with high grade dysplasia of the appendix reportable? See discussion.

The language appears similar to the mucinous cystic neoplasm of the pancreas with high grade dysplasia (8470/2), which was clarified to be reportable in 2014.

WHO does not list MCN as a histology for the appendix. This case should be clarified with the pathologist.

For pancreas specifically, the term "mucinous cystic neoplasm (MCN) with high grade dysplasia" replaced the term "mucinous cystadenocarcinoma, noninvasive" according to WHO. MCN with high grade dysplasia of the pancreas is reportable because it is used in place of the now obsolete terminology. If we did not make the new terminology reportable, trends over time could be affected.

 

N/A N/A 2016
20021140 EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: How do you code extension for a supraglottic larynx primary with "pre-epigolottic space" invasion?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 65 [Pre-epiglottic tissues]. Extension to "pre-epiglottic space" is equivalent to extension to "pre-epiglottic tissue."

 Head & Neck N/A 2002
20100014 Reportability: Are there criteria other than a pathologist or clinician's statement that a registrar can use to determine reportability of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST)? See Discussion.

Per SINQ 20091021 and 20021151, GIST cases are not reportable unless they are stated to be malignant. A pathologist or clinician must confirm the diagnosis of cancer. There are cases that are not stated to be malignant in the pathology report or confirmed as such by a clinician; however, these cases do have information that for other primary sites would typically be taken into consideration when determining reportability. The final diagnosis on the pathology report for all 16 cases is "GIST." The additional comment(s) for each of the 16 different cases is reported below. Are any of the following cases reportable?

1) Pathology report indicates that the bulk of the tumor is submucosal. It extends through the muscularis propria and abuts the serosa.

2) Pathology report states tumor extends to serosal surface of transverse colon, but not into muscularis propria. CD 117 and CD 34 are positive.

3) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades through the gastric wall to the serosal surface.

4) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades pericolic fat tissue.

5) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate omental caking.

6) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate hepatic metastases. Hepatic metastases are not biopsied.

7) Tumor stated to be unresectable and extends into pancreas. Chemotherapy given.

8) Pathology report states tumor is low to intermediate grade and involves serosal (visceral peritoneum).

9) Tumor size is 17.5 cm. Pathology report states "malignant risk".

10) Pathology report states tumor "into muscularis propria" or tumor "involves muscularis propria" or "infiltrates into muscularis propria".

11) Pathology report states, "high malignant potential; omentum inv by tumor." It is not stated in path report or final diagnosis to be malignant GIST.

12) Pathology report states that tumor arises from wall of small bowel and extends into thin serosal surface.

13) Pathology report states minimal invasion of lamina propria; does not penetrate muscularis propria.

14) Pathology report states, "high mitotic activity >10/50 HPF; high risk for aggressive behavior; moderate malignant potential."

15) Pathology report states tumor size is >5 cm. Intermediate risk for aggressive behavior; CD117+ KIT exon 11+.

16) Pathology report states "high risk of malignancy."

 For GIST to be reportable, the final diagnosis on the pathology report must definitively state that the GIST is malignant, or invasive, or in situ. Case 6 is the only exception. It would be reportable assuming the scan actually states "hepatic metastases." Based only on the information provided, none of the other examples are reportable. The type of extension and/or invasion mentioned in the other examples are not sufficient to confirm malignancy. Borderline neoplasms can extend and invade, but do not metastasize. Only malignant neoplasms metastasize. N/A N/A 2010
20110141

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should a 2010 diagnosis of central nervous system diffuse large B-cell lymphoma be abstracted as a new primary when the patient has a history of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma in the 1980's and a 1991 history of DLBCL of the bowel (NOS)? See Discussion.

Patient presents in 2010 with the history of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma and DLBCL. The patient is stated to have been in remission from the DLBCL. However, a current CT scan of the brain is consistent with central nervous system DLBCL. Cerebrospinal fluid cytology is consistent with DLBCL. The CT scan of the torso showed no lymphadenopathy or suspicious findings.

Does the recently discovered DLBCL disease process in the central nervous system represent a new third primary? Or is this disease recurrence/progression? The patient was referred to a cancer center and there is no additional information available regarding further workup or treatment.

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

The patient only has two primaries: cutaneous T-cell lymphoma diagnosed in the 1980s and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma of the bowel diagnosed in 1991.

The DLBCL of the brain does not represent a new primary. It is progression of the 1991 disease process with the same histology. Under the Alternate Names section in the Heme DB, one synonym for DLBCL is "Primary DLBCL of the CNS." The histology code for both the 1991 bowel neoplasm and the current CNS neoplasm is 9680/3. Per Rule M2, a single histology is a single primary.

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 2011
20010100 Grade, Differentiation--Lymphoma/Leukemia: What code is used to represent this field when the phenotype is combined B cell and T cell?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable]. There is no combination code for B cell and T cell. There is also no hierarchy established for choosing one code over the other. Therefore coding such a case as a pure B cell or a pure T cell would misrepresent the phenotype.

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.

 Lymphoma N/A 2001