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: 12/12/2025 23:16 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20180102

Solid Tumor Rules 2018/Histology--Brain and CNS: What code should be used for high grade neuroepithelial tumor with BCOR Alteration? See Discussion

A recent molecular study of PNET tumors at NCI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5139621) seems to indicate the discovery of four new CNS tumor entities, of which HGNET-BCOR is one. The article suggests that these are not primitive neuroectodermal tumors tumors (PNET), but something different.

This question was reviewed by an expert neuropathologist. He recommends coding these tumors to malignant tumor, clear cell type 8005/3.

He states: these tumors are extremely rare. In summary, CNS HGNET-BCOR represents a rare tumor occurring in young patients with dismal prognosis. Whether CNS HGNET-BCOR should be classified among the category of "embryonal tumors" or within the category of "mesenchymal, nonmeningothelial tumors" remains to be clarified. Because CNS HGNET-BCOR share pathologic features and characteristic BCOR-ITD with clear cell sarcoma of the kidney, these tumors may represent local variants of the same entity.

 2018
20071111 MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How many primaries should be abstracted when a patient has an adenocarcinoma with bronchioalveolar-like features in the right upper lobe, adenocarcinoma in the right middle lobe and non-small cell carcinoma with clear cell features in the right lower lobe? See Discussion.

A RUL lung wedge resection and RML and RLL lobectomies were performed. The RUL resection showed invasive adenocarcinoma with bronchioalveolar-like features. Tumor size 9x.9x.8cm. The RLL lobectomy showed invasive non-small cell carcinoma with clear cell features. Tumor size 4.1x2.5x1.8cm. The RML lobectomy showed invasive adenocarcinoma. Tumor size 3.0x1.6x2.2cm.

Comment: Essentially three invasive tumors and a focus of bronchioalveolar carcinoma were identified in 3 specimens. All of the tumors appear somewhat histologically different. The larger tumors in the right upper and middle lobe were somewhat similar but still appear histologically different and therefore the pathologic staging is done based on all tumors being separate. The pathologic staging for this case is pT2(4) pN0 pMX.

What histology code and what site code are to be used on each abstract?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Abstract two primaries:

  1. C349 with histology coded to 8140 - invasive adenocarcinoma (RUL and RML)

  • C343 with histology coded to 8310 - invasive non-small cell carcinoma with clear cell features (RLL)

    • First, determine the number of tumors. There are three separate tumors in right lung in the example above:

    • RUL: invasive adenocarcinoma, bronchioalveolar-like features (8140, "-like" is not on the list of ambiguous terms used to code histology)

  • RLL: invasive non-small cell carcinoma with clear cell features (8310)

  • RML: invasive adenocarcinoma (8140)

    • Because there are three tumors, begin with rule M3 in the Multiple Tumors module. Stop at rule M11, multiple primaries for the tumor in the RLL (8310) compared to the tumors in the RUL and RML (8140 and 8140).

    Now evaluate the tumors in the RUL and RML using the multiple primary rules. Start at rule M3 and stop at rule M12, single primary.

    		 2007
    		20160061

    Reportability/Behavior--Small intestine: Is a carcinoid tumor, described as benign, reportable? See Discussion.

     

    A segmental resection pathology report states "benign mucosal endocrine proliferation consistent with a 0.3 cm duodenal carcinoid tumor." The diagnosis comment further states, "the separate small endocrine lesion is histologically benign, consistent with a 3 mm carcinoid tumor." This seems to be an example of a description of a microcarcinoid tumor referenced in SINQ 20160011. However, in this new case the pathologist specifically states the tumor is benign.

    The WHO definition of microcarcinoid indicates this is a precursor lesion, which seems to indicate it is not malignant. However, SEER's previous answer stated we should report these tumors because the ICD-O-3 definition of carcinoid is 8240/3. Do you think that the mention of the term "benign" in the pathology report is actually related to the size of this lesion? Is the reference to benign mucosal endocrine proliferation referring to the WHO classification (making the case reportable as stated in SINQ 20160011), or is this a situation in which we should apply the Matrix Rule and the case is nonreportable?

    This carcinoid tumor, described as benign, is not reportable. According to our expert pathologist consultant, this case is not reportable because the pathologist uses "benign" to describe the mucosal endocrine proliferation and based on that, the neuroendocrine cell proliferation is hyperplasia/benign - not reportable.

    		2016
    		20021042

    Hormone Therapy--Breast: Should Zoladex (gosrelin) or Lupron (leuprolide acetate) be coded as treatment for breast cancer when the physician does not indicate whether or not these drugs are intended as cancer-directed therapy? See discussion.

    According to an oncologist at the research hospital in our region, these drugs are given in combination with chemotherapy for two reasons:

    1) To preserve ovarian function.

    2) The agents may be more effective in treating breast cancer when given in conjunction with chemotherapy than with chemotherapy alone.

    For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 to 12/31/2010: Code Zoladex (gosrelin) and Lupron (leuprolide acetate) as 01 [Hormone therapy administered as first course therapy] only when stated to be given as part of the first course of cancer-directed therapy. If you do not know whether these drugs were given to preserve ovarian function or as an adjunct to chemotherapy (i.e, there is no treatment plan), do not code as Hormonal treatment given.

    		2002
    		20150037

    Reportablility--Breast: Is lobular neoplasia reportable as lobular carcinoma in situ? See Discussion.

    According to College of American Pathologists (CAP), lobular neoplasia is also known as lobular carcinoma in situ. In a previous SEER question 20041089, it was stated that they were not the same and should not be reported unless it was a Grade 3. I assume this has changed and we are to report lobular neoplasia as lobular carcinoma in situ, is this correct?

    For cases diagnosed 2021 or later

    Lobular neoplasia (LN II and LN III) and lobular intraepithelial neoplasia (LIN II and LIN III) are reportable and coded 8520/2.

    		 2015
    		20091021

    Behavior/Reportability--All sites: Would a GIST tumor stated to be "high risk for malignant behavior" be a reportable GIST? See Discussion.

    According to our pathologist and oncologist, the terms "malignant" and "benign" do not apply to GIST. Rather, the term "high risk for malignant behavior" is used. This is based on tumor size: greater than 5 cm and mitotic activity: greater than 5 mitoses/50 hpf.

    Do not report the case to SEER if it does not satisfy the criteria for reportability. According to the current reportability criteria, malignant GIST (8936/3) is reportable to SEER. GIST coded to 8936/0 or 8936/1 is not reportable. If your pathologist will not indicate "malignant" or "benign," code 8936/1 applies according to ICD-O-3 and, therefore, these are not reportable to SEER.

    		 2009
    		20190092

    First course Treatment/Lymph Nodes: When a Sentinel Lymph Node (SLN) biopsy ONLY is performed and SLNs are negative, are the SLNs included still counted in Regional Nodes (RNs) Examined and RNs Positive, or are the fields filled in: RLN Examined: 00 (No nodes examined) RLN Positive: 98 (No nodes examined) Date RLN Dissection: 00/00/0000 (No RLN dissection performed) or are the SLN included in the RLN Examined/Positive field but the Date RLN Dissection is 00/00/0000? See Discussion.

    According to the 2018 SEER Manual, Sentinel Lymph Nodes (SLNs) Examined and SLNs Positive are included in Regional Nodes (RNs) Examined and RNs Positive when both a sentinel node biopsy procedure and a subsequent dissection procedure are performed or a sentinel node biopsy procedure is performed during the same procedure as the regional node dissection.

    If a SLN biopsy is performed but no RLN dissection is performed, assign as follows.

    Date of Regional Lymph Node Dissection: Leave blank as this field records the date non-sentinel regional node dissection was performed.

    Date of Regional Lymph Node Dissection Flag: Assign code 11 (Not applicable: No proper value is applicable in this context (for example, no regional lymph node dissection was performed; autopsy only cases).

    Regional Nodes Examined: Indicate the number of SLNs examined as this is cumulative from all procedures that remove lymph nodes through the completion of surgeries in the first course of treatment.

    Regional Nodes Positive: Indicate the number of SLNs positive as this is cumulative from all procedures that remove lymph nodes through the completion of surgeries in the first course of treatment.

    		 2019
    		20250025

    EOD 2018/Regional Nodes--Liver: Are the celiac axis lymph nodes considered regional lymph nodes or distant lymph nodes for a 2025 liver primary?

    According to the AJCC CAnswer Forum (https://cancerbulletin.facs.org/forums/node/160948), celiac axis nodes are considered regional for the liver. However, for liver primaries, Extent of Disease (EOD) regional lymph nodes list the following as regional lymph nodes:

    • Caval
    • Hepatic, NOS
      • Hepatic artery
      • Hepatic pedicle
      • Inferior vena cava
      • Porta hepatis (portal) (hilar) [in hilus of liver]
    • Periportal
    • Portal vein
    • Regional lymph node(s), NOS

    Based on this information, should celiac axis lymph nodes be considered as regional for liver primaries when coding EOD Regional Nodes?

    Code celiac axis lymph nodes as regional in EOD Regional Nodes for liver primaries.

    		 2025
    		20081073

    CS Extension/Ambiguous terminology--Pancreas: Should an exception be made for "abuts" or "encased/encasing" regarding CS pancreas extension? See Discussion.

    According to the CS Manual regarding ambiguous terminology, we do not accept "abuts" or "encased/encasing" as involvement. According to the March/April 2008 issue of "CA, A Cancer Journal for Clinicians", vol 58, number 2, an article concerning Pancreas staging by M.D. Anderson researchers/clinicians recommends defining unresectable involvement of the celiac axis/mesenteric artery with the terms "abutment" as involvement of 180 degrees or less of the circumference of the vessel, and "encasement" as more than 180 degree involvement. A large comprehensive cancer center in our area has already adopted these guidelines.

    This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Follow the current CS instructions regarding ambiguous terminology. "Abuts" and "encased/encasing" are not involvement.

    The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer provided the following in response to this question: This concept can be considered for CS version 2, but it would need to be made in conjunction with acceptance of that same theory in AJCC 7th Edition so that the stage can be derived. Many times what can be defined and accepted in a closed environment of a single institution research project cannot be duplicated and accepted across the nation and in every community facility. Would pathologists specify the > or < 180 degree involvement in every pathology report? It would also have to be reviewed to see if this idea has been accepted by the larger oncology community, or just the idea of a single institution.

    		 2008
    		20130070

    Reportability--Is "intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm with low grade dysplasia" (also called IPMN adenoma) reportable? See Discussion.

    According to the ICD-O-3, the histology for IPMN adenoma is 8453/0 is non-reportable. However, per SINQ 20021099, this is reportable.

    Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the pancreas with low grade dysplasia, also referred to as IPMN adenoma, is not reportable.

    IPMN of the pancreas is reportable when stated as "IPMN with high-grade dysplasia," or "IPMN with an associated invasive carcinoma," or  "IPMN with an associated in situ carcinoma."

    The case in SINQ 20021099 is stated to have "multifocal high grade dysplasia (so-called borderline tumor and carcinoma in-situ)" and is reportable because there is an explicit statement of carcinoma in situ, not because of the reference to the presence of high grade dysplasia. It is coded 8453/2 [Intraductal papillary-mucinous carcinoma, non-invasive].

    		 2013