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: 10/08/2026 10:42 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
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
20130106 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a 2009 diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma, nodular sclerosis type is treated and subsequently presents in 2010 with the same diagnosis? See Discussion.

2009 diagnosis of Hodgkin lymphoma, nodular sclerosis type involved the superior mediastinal nodes, AP window nodes, bilateral axillary nodes and pulmonary nodules. The patient received chemotherapy and went into remission.

Patient presents in 2010 with Hodgkin lymphoma, nodular sclerosing type in the superior mediastinum.

Does timing play any part in determining if this reported as one or two primaries? There is no timing rule in the Heme Manual.

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

Accession a single primary, Hodgkin lymphoma, nodular sclerosis type [9663/3] diagnosed in 2009 per Rule M2.

Accession a single primary when there is a single histology. Note 2 for Rule M2 indicates timing is not relevant. This is disease progression or recurrence and not a new 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 2013
20061023 Reportability--Skin: Is a pilomatrix carcinoma of the skin reportable if it is described as being a malignant diagnosis based on poor circumscription, infiltrative growth pattern, and focal abundant mitoses?

UPDATED June 2026

Pilomatrix carcinoma is not reportable to SEER. Skin primaries with histology codes from 8090 to 8110 are not reportable. Pilomatrix carcinoma is coded 8110/3.

See the SEER Coding Manual under Reportability, 1b: "Do not report (Exceptions to reporting requirements)"

 Skin N/A 2006
20000437

EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: Should "bilateral" inguinal lymph node involvement by lymphoma be two chains for the purpose of coding EOD?

Yes. Bilateral inguinal lymph nodes are coded as two chains/regions.

 Lymphoma N/A 2000
20140017

Multiple Primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: 2012 path report for removal of an "axillary mass" which consists of 80% diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and 20% follicular lymphoma. In the original manual, Module 6 instructed us to code as a single primary, DLBCL. However, the multiple primary calculator says each disease is a separate primary. When I looked them up in the data base, I did not get an option to review a current manual. Can you please advise?

Updated May 2026

The Multiple Primaries calculator is not applicable for this case.

In this case, there are two NHLs in the same location at the same time. Apply Rule M4, this is one primary. Per Note 7 under Rule M4, go to Rules PH11and PH15 to assign primary site and histology.

Rule PH11 states to code to the site of the origin (axillary mass) and to diffuse large b-cell lymphoma (9680/3) when DLBCL and any other non-Hodgkin lymphoma (follicular in this case) are present in the same location at the same time.

Code as a single primary with histology Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.

Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms N/A 2014
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
20071124 Multiplicity Counter-Breast: The general instructions say to ignore separate microscopic foci when determining when to use the single tumor or multiple tumor modules. Do these instructions apply if sizes are given for the foci? See Discussion. For instance, would a 1.2 cm breast tumor with 3 scattered microscopic foci ranging from 2-4 mm be treated as multiple tumors (4), or as a single tumor? If the microscopic foci are measured and listed as part of the diagnosis, they should be counted as multiple tumors. N/A N/A 2007
20000533

EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: In the SEER EOD manual, there is a list of terms to distinguish apparent from inapparent tumor for prostate primaries. Are terms in the "maybe" category and are terms not on the list clinically inapparent or clinically apparent when there is no physician staging of the case? See discussion.

The rectal examination states that there is "asymmetrical enlargement of the prostate, firmness over the right lobe" and the physical exam impression is extensive carcinoma of right lobe. A needle biopsy of the right lobe was positive. "Enlarged" is on SEER's list of clinically inapparent terms; "asymmetrical" and "firm, NOS" are on the "maybe" list.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

On the basis of the physical exam impression, code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to 20 [involvement of one lobe, NOS] for this case. Although the medical record did not provide a physician's staging of the case as clinically apparent, the physician did suspect carcinoma prior to the biopsy.

If clarifying stage information is missing and the term is in the "maybe" category or the term is not on the list, then code extension as 30 [localized, NOS] for cases that appear localized.

 Prostate N/A 2000
20071068 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries/Histology--Prostate: How many primaries should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded for a case in which the pathology specimen showed adenocarcinoma in 20% of the tissue and sarcoma in 50% of the tissue? See Discussion.

Patient has TURP. The final path diagnosis is adenocarcinoma in 20% of tissue and sarcoma in 50% of tissue.

Because it is unknown whether there is a single or multiple tumors, rule M1 (Other Sites) is used which states the case is to be abstracted as a single primary.

Single invasive histology rules are followed to rule H16, but table 2 does not contain a mixed code for this situation, even though ICD-O-3 has a code 8933/3 for "adenosarcoma". Therefore, rule H17 is applied that states to use the highest code, which in this case would be 8800/3 [Sarcoma, NOS]. Is this correct?

For cases diagnosed 2007-2014, code as two primaries, one adenocarcinoma and the other sarcoma.

This is two tumors (adenocarcinoma and separate sarcoma) until proven otherwise. Do not code as adenosarcoma, as this is a gyn-specific diagnosis. Adenosarcoma of the prostate is not a recognized entity in the WHO classification of prostate tumors.

 Prostate N/A 2007
20160030

Reportability--Carcinoid: Is a diagnosis of carcinoid heart disease, based solely on clinical information and no pathology, reportable?

Carcinoid heart disease is not reportable but this diagnosis indicates that the patient likely has a carcinoid tumor which may be reportable. Obtain further information.

N/A N/A 2016