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: 02/15/2026 11:32 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20071056 Reportability/Terminology--Prostate: Is the diagnosis of "atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma" sufficient to report a prostate cancer if a note states that there is "insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy"? See Discussion.

Date of report is July 2005. One positive specimen of 12.

Specimen 6: Diagnosis = Prostate tissue with a small focus of atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma. Note. There is insufficient cytologic and/or architectural atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy. Negative basal cell staining with cytokeratin... in atypical glands is consistent with the diagnosis of suspicious for adenocarcinoma. In addition, the diagnosis is suppported by a positive staining for alpha-methyl COA racemase (P504S), a recently discovered marker that is preferentially expressed in prostate cancer...

This case is reportable. The diagnosis states "suspicious for adenocarcinoma." "Suspicious for" is a reportable ambiguous term.

The additional stains supported this "suspicious" diagnosis. A more definitive diagnosis could not be made based on this specimen.

 2007
20081062 MP/H Rules/Date of Diagnosis/Behavior--Brain and CNS: How many primaries would be reported when a December 2004 MRI shows a pineal region mass with the major differential consideration being pineocytoma; a November 2007 MRI that shows the mass has almost tripled in size; and the December 2007 resection final diagnosis is consistent with pineoblastoma? How would diagnosis date[s] and behavior code[s] be coded? See Discussion.

Dec. 2004 MRI of brain: Pineal region mass. The major differential consideration given patient's gender, age group, and imaging characteristics is pineocytoma. The differential includes pineoblastoma or germ cell line tumor. These are felt less likely.

Nov. 2005 MRI brain: stable exam since last MRI. No change in size.

Nov. 2007 MRI studies: pineal mass has almost tripled in size.

Dec. 2007 Surgical resection of pineal tumor: High grade (WHO Grade IV) pineal parenchymal neoplasm consistent with pineoblastoma.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Abstract as separate primaries:

  • 12/2004 pineocytoma (9361/1)

  • 12/2007 pineoblastoma (9362/3)

    • Complete two abstracts when a previously diagnosed non-malignant tumor transforms or progresses to a malignancy. Refer to the CDC/NPCR guidelines for Data Collection of Primary Central Nervous System Tumors, 2004. Malignant transformation is discussed on page 50.

    		2008
    		20170033

    Grade--Appendix: What is the code and term to use for the grade/differentiation field for well differentiated, Grade 2 neuroendocrine tumor (NET)? See Discussion.

    Diagnosis: Fragmented appendix with: Goblet cell carcinoid tumor (typical goblet cell carcinoid): WELL DIFFERENTIATED neuroendocrine tumor; INTERMEDIATE GRADE (GRADE 2 NET). Size 3.5 cm according to surgical pathology report. Tumor infiltrates through appendiceal wall to subserosa. Tumor is present in what appears to be the wall of the appendix near the perforation site or in hemorrhagic tissue on the surface of the appendix. MAXIMUM MITOTIC RATE IS TWO (2) FIGURES PER 10 HIGH POWER fields (2/10hpf). (4/10 hpf according to report).

    WD indicates a 3- grade system (code 1 for WD) Intermediate grade indicates a 3- grade system (code grade 3 for intermediate grade), Grade 2 indicates a 2- grade system (code 2 for grade 2). Please advise.

    See SINQ 20160023 for NET grade coding instructions. Coding grade for NETs is slightly different from coding grade for other solid tumors.

    Since this diagnosis includes "Well differentiated" and "Grade 2," assign grade code 2, the higher grade. According to our expert pathologist consultant, "intermediate" fits best with grade 2.

    		 2017
    		20130139 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded when the original slides are reviewed at a later date and the revised diagnosis changes the histology? See Discussion.

    Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3] diagnosed in 5/2010 and treated with chemotherapy. In 11/2012 a bone marrow biopsy revealed small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) [9823/3].

    The 2010 slides were reviewed and showed, "a large cell lymphoid proliferation, many of the cells which appear to be prolymphocytes. There are background smaller lymphocytes that are consistent with CLL/SLL. In retrospect, the lymph node most likely represented a prolymphocytic conversion in SLL."

    The medical oncologist is calling this a recurrent lymphoma. Should the original 5/2010 diagnosis be changed to 9823/3 [CLL/SLL]? Is this documented in the Heme Manual?

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

    Change the histology of the original 2010 diagnosis to 9823/3 [chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma] based on the review of the 2010 slides. The 2010 diagnosis was revised based on the review of slides and the histology should be changed accordingly. The closest example of this is located in the SEER Manual, Changing Information on the Abstract, instruction 3, example 4.

    Histology code 9670/3 [SLL] is obsolete for cases diagnosed 2010 and later. All diagnoses of CLL/SLL, CLL, and SLL are now coded to histology code 9823/3 [CLL/SLL].

    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.

    		2013
    		20230038

    Histology/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Mycosis Fungoides:  What is the histology code for lymphomatoid papulosis that transforms initially to mycosis fungoides (MF)/cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) and subsequently to CTCL with large cell transformation, and is it a new primary?  See Discussion.

    Disease History

    2018 - Lymphomatoid papulosis (non-reportable)

    2020 - Transform to CTCL (and called Mycosis Fungoides specifically) (CTCL/MF same primary)

    2021 - Transform to CTCL with large cell transformation

    Abstract a single primary and assign code 9700/3 for MF.  According to our subject matter expert, this is all MF.  When MF progresses, there can be large cd30 positive T cells. This is not the same as anaplastic large cell lymphoma.

    		 2023
    		20110029 DCO/Multiplicity Counter/Type of Multiple Tumors: How are these fields coded for an unknown primary reported as a DCO case? See Discussion.

    Do DCO cases have default values for the Multiplicity Counter and Multiple Tumor Reported as One Primary fields? Should these fields be coded as 88 or 99?

    In the data item pages for these fields, there is only a reference to see the NAACCR Death Clearance Manual. However, this manual does not provide an answer. There is guidance to use code 88 for unknown primaries but we noticed that SEER edits skip enforcing this requirement for DCO cases (see SEER IF205 and 206).

    		 For a DCO case reported as an unknown primary [C809], code Multiplicity Counter to 99 [Unknown if multiple tumors; not documented] and Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary to 99 [Unknown]. 2011
    		20031068

    EOD-Extension--Colon: Is a pathology description of "superficial invasion of the muscularis mucosa in the upper stalk of the polyp" coded in this field to 10 [mucosa (including intramucosal) NOS], 12 [Muscularis mucosa], or 14 [Stalk of polyp]? See Description.

    Do we use the highest applicable value because all three definitions are used in the following example? Ex: Path diagnosis: Sigmoid polyp: tubulovillous adenoma with a focus within upper portion of stalk consistent with superficially invasive (intramucosal) colonic adenocarcinoma (see Comment). Comment: ... in the upper stalk region, there is evidence of superficially invasive carcinoma which appears to be limited to the muscularis mucosa and thus would be intramucosal by classification.

    For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code extension as 12 [muscularis mucosae]. For this case, "upper stalk" is a reference to location rather than extension. This adenocarcinoma extends to the muscularis mucosa.

    		 2003
    		20160002

    MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Which is the correct histology code to use and which MP/H rule applies in the case of a single lumpectomy specimen that demonstrates two separate tumors with the following histologies.

    1) Invasive lobular carcinoma

    2) Invasive ductal carcinoma with tubular features

    See discussion.

    Does ductal carcinoma with tubular features qualify for Breast MP/H Rule H28? Or, is it more appropriate to strictly follow Table 2 (not a type of ductal tumor) and apply Rule H29, thus losing the lobular component?

    Abstract a single primary using Rule M13. Assign 8523/3 using rule H29. The code for  invasive ductal carcinoma with tubular features (8523/3) is higher than the code for invasive lobular carcinoma (8520/3). H28 does not apply because 8523/3 is not included as a type of duct carcinoma on Table 2.

    		2016
    		20120027 MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: How is histology coded if a patient has two frank invasive adenocarcinomas in one segment of the colon and multiple tubular adenomas and hyperplastic polyps throughout the entire colon without a diagnosis of familial polyposis [FAP]? See Discussion.

    Does Rule H19 apply which indicates the histology is coded to 8221 [adenocarcinoma in multiple adenomatous polyps] because there are multiple polyps (number not specified) throughout the colon? Does tumor have to arise in at least one of the adenomas in order to apply Rule H19?

    Or, does Rule H22 apply which indicates the histology is coded to 8140 [adenocarcinoma, NOS] because the adenocarcinomas are both frank invasive adenocarcinomas and not adenocarcinoma arising in an adenoma?

    Code the histology as adenocarcinoma, NOS [8140/3].

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

    Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) and go to the Colon Histology rules to determine the histology code for this case. The Module you use depends on the behavior and number of tumors identified in the primary site.

    Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS ABSTRACTED AS A SINGLE PRIMARY Module Rule H15. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order from Rule H15 to Rule H24. Stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing. Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. In this case, the only histology present was adenocarcinoma, NOS [8140/3].

    Rules H17 through H21 do not apply in this case because there is no malignancy arising in any of the adenomas or polyps scattered throughout the colon.

    		2012
    		20100077 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Would it be correct to apply rule M5 for a recurrence and abstract a single primary when a patient has a history of Hodgkin disease diagnosed in 2005 followed by a diagnosis of "recurrent Hodgkin and EBV+ Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma" in 2010? See Discussion.

    Does Rule M5 only apply if both diseases are present at the original diagnosis, or does it also take into account a recurrence of an old disease? The answer to this question makes a difference between stopping at rule M5 and abstracting as one disease, or going on to rule M15 to query the Hematopoietic Database to determine whether the patient has two separate primaries.

    Example: Patient had Stage II Hodgkin disease in 2005 (all lymph nodes above diaphragm, supraclavicular LN biopsied at diagnosis), treated and patient achieved complete remission. In 2010, the patient is admitted for suspected recurrence. A supraclavicular lymph node biopsy showed, "Recurrent Hodgkin" AND "EBV+ Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma," both in the same lymph node. Applying rule M5, this is a single primary and states not to query the DB. However, this doesn't seem correct as it does not account for the new DLBCL.

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

    You must first determine the histology codes for each occurrence of lymphoma. The 2005 diagnosis was stated to be Hodgkin disease (NOS) [9650/3]. The 2010 diagnosis was Hodgkin and EBV + diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (two histologies). Per Rule M5 the 2010 diagnosis is a single primary because the Hodgkin and the non-Hodgkin (DLBCL) were simultaneously present in the same lymph node. Per Rule PH14, a Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin simultaneously present in the same location should be coded to 9596/3 [B-cell lymphoma, unclassifiable].

    Ultimately, there is a diagnosis of 9596/3 in 2010 that followed a diagnosis of 9650/3 in 2005. Per Rule M15, use the Multiple Primary Calculator to determine the number of primaries, which indicates the 9596/3 is 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. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

    		 2010