Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20150002 | Reportability--Bladder: Please explain the reportability of UroVysion for bladder cancer in the following circumstances.
1. Patient has positive UroVysion test and follow up biopsy is negative. Is this case reportable with a diagnosis date the date of the UroVysion?
2. Patient has positive UroVysion test and follow up biopsy is positive for cancer. Is the diagnosis date of the date of the positive UroVysion or the date of the positive biopsy? Thank you. |
Do not report a case based on UroVysion test results alone. Report a case when there is positive histology, a physician statement of malignancy, and/or the patient was treated for cancer.
1. Do not report the case.
2. Report the case based on the positive biopsy. |
Bladder | N/A | 2015 | |
|
|
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 | |
|
|
20150044 | Reportability--Ovary: Is micropapillary serous carcinoma (MPSC) of the ovary reportable? What are the differences between “noninvasive" and “low malignant potential?" See discussion. |
Pathology report reads left ovary: noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC), fragmented; right ovarian excrescence and posterior cul-de-sac: noninvasive implants identified; right ovary: noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC), scattered autoimplants (noninvasive); tumor is present on ovarian surface, noninvasive autoimplants |
Noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC) of the ovary is reportable. Assign code 8460/2, applying the ICD-O-3 matrix concept to this noninvasive carcinoma. Noninvasive can be used as a synonym for in situ, ICD-O-3 behavior code /2. See page 66 in the softcover ICD-O-3. Low malignant potential (LMP) means that the neoplasm is not malignant, but has some chance of behaving in a malignant fashion. LMP can be used as a synonym for ICD-O-3 behavior code /1, see page 66. |
Ovary | N/A | 2015 |
|
|
20140034 | Reportability--Ovary: Can you clarify when widely metastatic borderline histologies of the ovary and various other sites are reportable? See discussion. |
SINQ 20130176 states that an adult granulosa cell tumor of the ovary with metastases is malignant. However, SINQ 20091087 states that a borderline tumor of the appendix with metastasis is not reportable.
The first statement of 20130176 “though granulosa cell tumor is coded 8620/1, the presence of peritoneal or lymph node metastases indicate the tumor is malignant and coded as /3” does not coincide with the second statement of “the behavior of borderline/LMP ovarian epithelial tumors is determined by the ovarian primary, even though there may be peritoneal implants or metastatic disease in the lymph nodes”. If the ovarian metastases do make this a reportable malignancy, can this line of thinking be used to determine reportability for borderline histologies for other sites such as the appendix? |
The case in 20130176 is adult granulosa cell tumor. The answer points out an important difference in the way "metastases" from this histology should be interpreted versus low malignant potential ovarian epithelial tumors. Metastases from adult granulosa cell tumor of the ovary indicates a malignant primary. So-called metastases from a LMP epithelial tumor do not indicate a malignant primary when the metastatic deposits are also LMP/borderline in behavior.
Do not apply instructions for ovarian cases to other primary sites including appendix. |
Ovary | N/A | 2014 |
|
|
20150050 | Reportability: Is penile intraepithelial neoplasia, differentiated type, reportable? See discussion. |
Foreskin circumcision shows: Penile intraepithelial neoplasia, differentiated type (differentiated PeIN). If reportable, how would the histology and behavior be coded? Is this behavior /2? |
For cases diagnosed 2018 and later Differentiated penile intraepithelial neoplasia (differentiated PeIN), is reportable (8071/2). Please note: Penile intraepithelial neoplasia, grade 3 (PeIN 3) is also reportable to SEER (C600-C609, 8077/2). |
N/A | N/A | 2015 |
|
|
20100104 | Grade--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is the phrase "aberrant T-cell expression" enough to code the grade field to T-cell when the final diagnosis on the pathology report is "AML with aberrant T-cell antigen expression"? | Yes. Code grade to 5 [T-cell]. The T cell receptor, or TCR, is a molecule found on the surface of T lymphocytes (or T cells). | Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms | N/A | 2010 | |
|
|
20110073 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Sarcoma: Does a prior clinical diagnosis of a metastatic deposit for a previously diagnosed sarcoma have priority if the diagnosis on a subsequent resection (18 months later) indicates it is also a sarcoma but does not state it represents metastasis from the original sarcoma primary? See Discussion. |
1/28/08 Patient was diagnosed with spindle cell sarcoma in the right gluteus muscle. Metastatic tumors were found in a vertebral body and in the lung. Chemotherapy was started.
4/22/08 PET scan done to evaluate response to chemo. The primary tumor had increased in size. New mass in the left thigh that was highly suspicious for metastasis found. (The left thigh tumor was not accessioned at that time as it was described as a metastatic tumor.)
7/3/09 Left thigh tumor was resected and path revealed spindle cell sarcoma. There was no mention that it represented metastasis.
Does the left thigh tumor represent a new primary per rule M12? Or does the previous clinical description of the left thigh tumor representing metastasis have priority? |
this is a single primary per Rule M1. According to our expert pathologist, "if multiple solid tissue tumors are present (sarcomas), then almost always there is one primary and the rest are metastases. There are infrequent occasions of multifocal liposarcoma or osteosarcoma occurring, but the patient would be treated as a patient with metastatic disease."
The steps used to arrive at this answer are:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a soft tissue primary, use one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Other Sites MP rules to determine the number of primaries because soft tissue primaries do not have site specific rules.
Go to the UNKNOWN IF SINGLE OR MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M1.
Rule M1 states, "It is not possible to determine if there is a single tumor or multiple tumors, opt for a single tumor and abstract a single primary." Given the information from the expert pathologist, this case should be reported as a single primary applying this rule. |
Sarcoma | N/A | 2011 |
|
|
20010002 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: How do you code tumor size for lesions described as "at least 2 cm"? See discussion. | The expression "at least 2 cm" seems to be different from "greater than 2 cm." Stating "at least" seems to indicate that if the tumor is larger than 2 cm, it is difficult to ascertain the exact tumor size. Should we accept 2 cm as the best info we have, or default to 999 because of the lack of specificity? | For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 020 [2 cm], using the rule "code what you know." |
N/A | N/A | 2001 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20031015 | EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: How is the following guideline of "any mention of lymph nodes is considered indicative of involvement" applied for EOD-Extension of lymphoma cases when there is a discrepancy between physicians as to the stage at diagnosis? See discussion. | A biopsy of mesenteric nodes confirmed lymphoma. A bone marrow biopsy was negative. A CT of the chest indicates "small mediastinal and bilateral hilar nodes, but without convincing adenopathy." The case was Stage 2 per the oncologist and Stage 3 per the surgeon's TNM form. | For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:
Based on the information provided for this example, the lymphoma involves one site, mesenteric nodes. Code EOD extension as 10 [Involvement of a single lymph node region]. The statement "For lymphomas, any mention of lymph nodes is indicative of involvement" refers to the terms in the paragraph above it on page 8 of the EOD manual: Palpable, enlarged, visible swelling, shotty, lymphadenopathy. While these terms are ignored for other malignancies, they should not be ignored for lymphomas. None of these terms apply to the example provided here. According to the CT, the mediastinal and hilar nodes are "small" "without convincing adenopathy." In other words, the mediastinal and hilar nodes are negative. |
Lymphoma | N/A | 2003 |
An official website of the United States government
