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: 02/17/2026 18:11 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20110143

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many and what primary site(s) are to be accessioned when biopsies of clavicular and neck skin lesions are both consistent with mycosis fungoides? See Discussion.

Per the Heme DB and Manual, this is a single primary; however, per the MP/H Rules, this would be multiple primaries. Which rules apply to this case?

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

When there is a question of whether the SEER MP/H Rules or Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Rules apply, check the histology and refer to the Case Reportability Instructions in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Manual. All ICD-O-3 morphology codes in the range 9590 - 9992 are included in the Hematopoietic Rules. Mycosis Fungoides [9700/3] is included in this range. Therefore, the SEER MP/H Rules do not apply to mycosis fungoides.

This case should be accessioned as a single primary: mycosis fungoides [9700/3] of the skin, NOS [C449]. Per Rule M2 abstract a single primary when there is a single histology.

Note that in the Primary Site(s) section of the Heme DB, it states the primary site must always be coded to skin (C440 - C449) for mycosis fungoides. Because the primary site is stated in this section of the Heme DB, it is not necessary to use the Primary Site Rules to determine the primary site. Code the primary site to C449 [skin, NOS] because the patient has multiple sites of skin involvement and there is no documentation indicating which subsite of skin was the origin of the mycosis fungoides.

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.

 2011
20140081

Reportability/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is primary erythrocytosis equivalent to primary polycythemia and thus reportable? See discussion.

Per the Heme Manual, Appendix F - Non-Reportable list for Heme Diseases, under Polycythemia, the Comment states that polycythemia is also known as erythrocytosis. Because polycythemia is equivalent to erythrocytosis, can we assume that "primary erythrocytosis" is equivalent to "primary polycythemia" and thus reportable as 9950/3 per the Heme DB? Or is the case nonreportable because the exact term of "primary erythrocytosis" is not listed as an alternate name for polycythemia vera, only "primary polycythemia" is listed?

Primary erythrocytosis is not equivalent to primary polycythemia and is not reportable. This will be clarified in a future revision. Thank you for point it out to us.

2014
20130176

Reportability--Ovary: Is an adult granulosa cell tumor of the right adnexa reportable if the left adnexa, diaphragm and paratubal tissue are reported to be consistent with metastasis? See discussion.

Per the pathology report: Right adnexa: adult granulosa cell tumor. Left adnexa: Foci of metastatic granulosa cell tumor in paratubal tissue. Diaphragm smears: consistent with metastatic granulosa cell tumor. Comment: The morphology and immunoprofile of the cellular aggregates in the paratubal soft tissue are consistent with metastatic granulosa cell tumor.

Based on the information provided, this case of adult granulosa cell tumor is malignant and reportable. According to our expert pathologist consultant, "though granulosa cell tumor NOS/ adult NOS is 8620/1, the presence of peritoneal implants or metastases, and/or lymph node metastases indicates the tumor is malignant, and it should be coded /3."

Note that the presence of implants or metastases does not indicate malignancy in the case of low malignant potential ovarian epithelial tumors. Our path expert explains "in contrast, by convention the behavior of borderline/LMP ovarian epithelial tumors is determined by the ovarian primary, and is /1, even though there may be peritoneal implants/metastases, or metastatic disease in lymph nodes. The treatment may vary in these circumstances, but to my knowledge the decision as to the tumor designation remains based on the primary tumor."

2013
20110015 Primary site/Histology: Do the 4/1/09 changes in the ICD-O-3 Site/Type Validation table regarding the coding of primary site for intestinal type adenocarcinoma mean that the former valid site/histology combinations are now impossible and require review from a given diagnosis date forward? See Discussion.

Per the SEER Errata for ICD-O-3 Site/Type Validation List, April 1, 2009, adenocarcinoma, intestinal type, was removed as a valid site/histology combination for the following primary sites: C150-C155, C158-C159, C170-C173, C178-C179, C180-C189, C199, C209, C210-C212, C218.

  • Does this mean that these combinations cannot be used? If so, then why is an override allowed for these site/type combinations? Shouldn't these site/type combinations be added to the impossible site/type combinations table?

  • SINQ 20081085 states that "8144/3 will be removed from the valid site/histology list for large intestine, small intestine, and rectum." It appears from the Site/Type Validation table that a decision was made to also remove esophagus sites as a valid combination with histology code of 8144. Please explain the rationale.

  • Cases that were miscoded to 8144/3 will need to be identified for correction. What date of diagnosis should be the reference point used in making the necessary corrections related to this change? Do we only need to review cases diagnosed 1/1/2009 forward or should all cases be corrected regardless of date of diagnosis?

    • The site/type edit identifies unlikely combinations of primary site and histologic type.

  • Intestinal type adenocarcinoma occurs in the stomach. It would be rare in another primary site, but not impossible.

  • It was decided that all digestive organ sites, except stomach, would be removed from the list. That is why esophagus is not listed as a valid site.

  • The site/type edit is for all years. Cases for all years have to be reviewed for combinations of site and type that are no longer on the list. If it is documented in the medical record that the primary site and histology combination are valid, set the over-ride flag so that the case will not come up for review again.

    		• 2011
    		20150026

    First course treatment--Breast: When Lupron is given as cancer-directed treatment for metastatic breast cancer, should it be coded as Hormone Therapy or Other Therapy? See Discussion.

    Per the SEER*Rx Database, Lupron is coded as Other Therapy for breast cancer until such time that it receives FDA approval. However, SINQ 20021042 states Lupron should be coded as Hormone Therapy when given as cancer-directed therapy. These two sources contradict each other.

    Information regarding hormone therapy for breast cancer in both the SEER*Rx Database and the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Topics website (http://www.cancer.gov/types/breast/breast-hormone-therapy-fact-sheet) seem to indicate that the SINQ answer is the correct choice. The NCI Cancer Topics website states that Lupron acts to block ovarian function and is an example of an ovarian suppression drug that has been approved by the FDA. The SEER*Rx Database Remarks section states that a combination of letrozole and leuprolide (Lupron) "is considered standard treatment for metastatic breast cancer and is sometimes used for treatment of early stage breast cancer." But the Remarks go on to state that Lupron should be coded as Other Therapy until it receives FDA approval.

    It is unclear how to code Lupron for breast cancers when the NCI website indicates that it is standard treatment while the SEER*Rx Database states both that it is and that it is not standard treatment.

    Code Lupron given for breast cancer in the "Other" treatment field using code 6 (other-unproven). Lupron is still not an approved hormone treatment for breast cancer and should not be coded in the hormone field.

     

    		2015
    		20200017

    Histology--Head & Neck: Why is 8070 not listed as a valid histology for ill-defined sites as squamous cell carcinoma arises in the head and neck sites. See Discussion.

    Per the site validation list: https://seer.cancer.gov/icd-o-3/sitetype.icdo3.20190618.pdf#search=site%20validation, ill-defined sites (ILL-DEFINED C760-C768) does not include 8070- Squamous cell carcinoma as a valid histology. Therefore when a Cervical Lymph Node and Unknown Primary Tumor of the Head and Neck is submitted with a C760 and 8070/3, it requires an override be set.

    Histology code 8070 has been added to C760 on the site validation list. It will be updated for 2021. Continue to override this combination for now.

    		 2020
    		20130183

    Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a peripheral blood finding consistent with involvement by monoclonal, lambda-restricted mature B cell population with co-expression of CD5 and CD23 reportable if, immunophenotypically, the case is consistent with a chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma? See Discussion.

    Peripheral blood: Final diagnosis: Leukocytosis absolute lymphocytosis monoclonal, lambda restricted B-cell population w/co-expression of CD5 and CD23 absolute increase in CD4=helper T cells. See comment.

    Comment: Peripheral blood findings are consistent with involvement by monoclonal, lambda-restricted mature B cell population with co-expression of CD5 and CD23, which is immunophenotypically consistent with a chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma immunophenotype. However, the absolute monoclonal population is only 3.02k/ul.

    According to WHO criteria, in the absence of extramedullary tissue involvement, the monoclonal lymphocyte population must be greater than or equal to 5.0 k/ul. Therefore, in the absence of clinical evidence of extramedullary tissue involvement, the diagnosis is most consistent with a monoclonal B cell lymphocytosis. Review of initial analysis reveals well-defined groups of cells within lymphocyte, monocyte and granulocyte gates as defined by CD45 and sid-scatter characteristics (%'s are listed). Overall, peripheral blood findings are consistent with involvement by monoclonal, lambada-restricted B cell population with a chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma immunophenotype.

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

    This case is reportable. Code histology to 9823/3 [CLL/SLL].

    Ambiguous terminology is used to accession cases (determine reportability) because it has been used for over 30 years to do so. Any deviation from using ambiguous terminology to determine case reportability would cause the reporting of incidence counts to vary. In this case, there was a reportable, ambiguous terminology diagnosis on peripheral blood that is "consistent with" involvement by chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) immunophenotype.

    The ambiguous terminology "consistent with" in the flow cytometry report is acceptable to determine reportability. Given that it is the only reportable histology mentioned in the scenario, it is also used to code histology. The instruction "Do not code histology based on ambiguous terminology" is intended to be used when there is a reportable NOS histology and reportable more specific histology stated in the diagnosis. Ambiguous terminology cannot be used to report the more specific diagnosis in cases of Heme & Lymphoid neoplasms.

    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
    		20120045 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the primary site of a diffuse large B-cell lymphoma described on a PET and an abdominal CT scan as a large pelvic mass displacing bladder and uterus, inseparable from anus, right pelvic sidewall, cervix and bilateral ovaries and per the clinician as stage IIE? See Discussion.

    PET: large pelvic mass displacing bladder and uterus, inseparable from anus, right pelvic sidewall, cervix and bilateral ovaries. Diffuse abnormal uptake within this mass as well as the adjacent structures. No regional hypermetabolic adenopathy is noted and no imaging evidence of distant metastatic disease. The PET also demonstrated diffuse abnormal uptake within the pelvic mass as well as the adjacent structures.

    CT abdomen: large pelvic mass invading vagina and inseparable from the anus, right pelvic sidewall, cervix and bilateral ovaries.

    MD states: "stage IIE with invasion of vagina."

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

    Per Rule 18, code the primary site to C775 [pelvic lymph nodes]. Per Rule PH18, code the primary site to the specified lymph node region when the site of lymphoma is described only as a mass. This rule also indicates that the Code pelvic lymph nodes [C775] when the lymph nodes are described as a pelvic mass.

    This rule has been effect for SEER for over 20 years. It is based on the fact that a number of lymphomas that originate in nodes are not diagnosed until those nodes become matted or fixed. The presentation is then one of a "mass" in those nodal regions.

    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.

    		2012
    		20130211 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are reported if a bone marrow shows low grade mature B cell lymphoma with IgM paraprotein - macroglobulinemia? See Discussion.

    Physician note: Bone marrow shows 10% involvement with low grade lymphoma. Assessment: Low grade mature B cell lymphoma with IgM paraprotein - macroglobulinemia.

    The multiple primaries calculator indicates two primaries are to be reported. However, the physician stated that Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia is another name for this patient's lymphoma.

    There were no enlarged lymph nodes seen on the CT scan. The proposed treatment for this patient is Rituxan for the macroglobulinemia.

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

    Per Rule M2, this is a single primary because there is a single histology. The bone marrow initially showed a non-specific B-cell lymphoma. WM is a type of B-cell neoplasm. After immunophenotyping, a more specific histologic diagnosis of WM was made. In this case a single histology (WM) is diagnosed by the definitive diagnostic method (serum paraprotein demonstrating IgM), so it accessioned as a single primary.

    Per PH16, code the histology to 9761/3 [Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia (WM)] and the primary site to C420 [blood].

    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
    		20200078

    Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Brain and CNS: Should the new malignant term pituitary blastoma be added to Table 3 of the 2018 Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) and Peripheral Nerves Solid Tumor Rules? See Discussion.

    Pituitary blastoma was not added to Table 3 (Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtypes/Variants) of the 2018 Malignant CNS and Peripheral Nerves Solid Tumor Rules as part of the December 2020 update. This is a new malignant CNS histology for 2021 and later. Not including this histology in Table 3 results in the registrars being required to check another source to correctly code this histology. If this histology cannot be used for cases diagnosed prior to 2021, should that diagnosis year clarification be included in the STR?

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

    The Solid Tumor Malignant CNS tables do not list pituitary specific histologies at this time. Registrars will need to refer to ICD-O and/or updates until the decision to add malignant pituitary neoplasms is made. Pituitary blastoma is a rare tumor which occurs in children.

    		 2020