SEER Inquiry System - Search

In our registry, we code the primary site for such cases to the extra-lymphatic site if there is one extra-nodal site involved with disease and the patient does not have disseminated involvement of multiple extra-nodal sites. Is this correct? Example: A patient with a submandibular lymphoma and involved nodes undergoes a salivary gland excision and a modified radical neck dissection yielding 100 nodes.

In previous STR versions and the ICD-O-3.2, SFT/hemangiopericytoma, WHO G1 is 8815/0 and only SFT/hemangiopericytoma, WHO G2 was 8815/1. However, Table 6 (Non-Malignant CNS, Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtypes/Variants) was changed in the 2025 updates to indicate both G1 and G2 SFT/hemangiopericytoma are 8815/1.

No date range was provided for this change in the STR and the behavior of this tumor was not updated by the standard setters in other references (i.e., ICD-O-3.2). The behavior of G1 SFT/hemangiopericytoma was not updated in the 2025 ICD-O-3.2 updates. If the ICD-O-3.2 was the source of this change, should this have been documented in the 2025 NAACCR Implementation Guidelines? However, the 2025 NAACCR Implementation Guidelines indicates, "There are no ICD-O-3 changes for 2025." Is this behavior change in 2025 Solid Tumor Rules updates an error? Should the behavior of SFT/hemangiopericytoma, WHO G1 remain /0? 

In reference to the case below, does it make a difference if the CS T stage is known based on the primary excision but there is no clinical information in the record regarding the nodes or metastasis evaluation.

This scenario is seen on outpatient records of breast biopsies and melanoma excisions; i.e., punch bx followed by gross excision of the lesion but the medical record contains no clinical information or statement of everything else normal.

I&R Question 17625 2/16/2006

A patient was diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ by needle core biopsy of the right breast. There was no further information in the chart stating if or where the patient went for staging work-up and treatment. What are the codes for CS Extension, CS Regional Lymph Nodes and CS Distant Mets at Dx?

I&R Answer: Sufficient tissue must be taken to determine the T category. If this is the case, CS Extension = 00.

Unless the physician makes the statement that the physical exam is negative, code the CS Regional Lymph Nodes = 99 CS Distant Mets at DX = 99.

In researching this, acral lentiginous melanoma is observed on the palms, soles and under the nails. To code to 8744, do we specifically have to see the word "acral" lentiginous melanoma?

In the 2018 ICD-O-3 Update Table, undifferentiated high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma and undifferentiated high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma of bone (C40_) were both listed as a New Term for histology 8830/3. There was no site restriction for a diagnosis of undifferentiated high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma. Therefore, it appears the diagnosis could easily be applied to a soft tissue tumor. This histology is used by pathologists in our region for soft tissue tumors as well as bone tumors. However, in the ICD-O-3.2 Table an entry (or synonym) was not provided for a tumor outside the bone.

The ICD-O-3.2 Table only lists undifferentiated high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma of bone for site codes C40_ and C41_ as a synonym for histology 8830/3. This also is not listed in the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines. As a result, it is unclear whether a diagnosis of undifferentiated high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma of the soft tissue can be coded to 8830/3 and/or can be a synonym for the preferred term (8830/3, Malignant fibrous histiocytoma). Can a diagnosis of undifferentiated high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma of the soft tissue be coded to 8830/3, C49_ as it was per the 2018 ICD-O-3 Update Table?

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

In the 2024 Solid Tumor Rules update, the small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma row in Table 2 was changed. The NOS histology became neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS (8246) and both large cell and small cell neuroendocrine carcinomas (8013 and 8041, respectively) became the subtype/variants. This change impacts Rule H4 but Rule H4 was not updated. Rule H4 still refers to small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma as being the NOS histology.

In the prior STR versions, it was clear the tumor in question would be coded as 8045 per Rule H4 and Table 2. Considering Rule H4 was not updated according to the changes for Table 2, does histology 8045 still apply to this diagnosis?

There is currently no way to arrive at a histology for this case. Does Rule H4, bullet 3 need to be updated to indicate, “subtype/variant of neuroendocrine carcinoma mixed with any other carcinoma (does not apply to sarcoma)”?

In the April 2019 Breast Solid Tumor Rules update, the Priority Order for Using Documentation to Identify Histology was changed, giving equal priority to the Final diagnosis / synoptic report as required by CAP (item 2B).

There are technically two histologies documented for the case above; a Not Otherwise Stated (NOS)/No Special Type (NST) (invasive mammary carcinoma, per final diagnosis text) and subtype/variant (invasive cribriform carcinoma, per CAP report). If we do not use the synoptic report with priority over the final diagnosis, Rule H14 indicates the histology would be the NOS histology (invasive mammary carcinoma) because the percentage of tumor is not given for the subtype. However, SINQ 20180045 states, In the CAP protocol, the term Histologic Type is a label where the histology that corresponds to the largest carcinoma is collected. According to the CAP protocol for invasive breast cancer, the histologic type corresponds to the largest carcinoma.

If the pathologist summarizes the findings in a synoptic report, should the specific Histologic Type identified have priority?

In the April and July 2019 updates to the Solid Tumor Rules, the term simultaneous and Note 1 indicating histologies must be the same behavior were removed from rule M10 (ductal and lobular are a single primary).

We would like to confirm that rule M10 is the correct rule to apply to this case. This case is an invasive diagnosis approximately 4.5 years after an in situ diagnosis, so it seems like M17 should apply (invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later are multiple primaries).

An invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later of the same histology is a new primary. Similarly, it seems like an invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later of different histologies should be a new primary.

In the Collaborative Stage manual in general instructions this guideline exists:

"The extent of disease may be described only in terms of T (tumor), N (node), and M (metastasis) characteristics. In such cases, assign the code in the appropriate field that corresponds to the TNM information. If there is a discrepancy between documentation in the medical record and the physician's assignment of TNM, the documentation takes precedence..." (Similar to language to use SEER information over TNM).

In the Hematopoetic Manual, page 22, it is states: "The use of donor leukocyte infusions for treatment of hematopoietic neoplasms, specifically leukemias, is increasing.  Abstract as bone marrow transplant when a reportable hematopoietic neoplasm is treated with donor leukocyte infusion, even if it is not listed in the treatment section of the Heme db for the specific neoplasm."  Question 20110048 in the SEER Inquiry, it is stated "Donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) is coded as immunotherapy."  Donor lymphocyte infusion and donor leukocyte infusions are the same procedure.  Please clarify discrepancy as coding is needed for a case treated with donor lymphocytic infusion.