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: 02/12/2026 10:15 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20240045

Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Prostate: Should cases be reported and abstracted based on ambiguous terminology, e.g., suspicious for prostate cancer, when the physician is not treating the case as malignant? See Discussion.

Please comment on these specific scenarios.

  1. A prostate biopsy is suspicious for adenocarcinoma, but the urologist is not considering this malignant, nor is the urologist treating for malignancy, but there is no clear statement from the physician that this is not reportable.  Should this case be abstracted?
  2. A prostate biopsy is suspicious for adenocarcinoma, and there is a statement by the physician that this is not yet malignant. Should this case be abstracted?
  3. Prostate MRI with PIRADS 4 or 5; however, the treating urologist does not call this malignant and is not treating patient for prostate cancer.  [Example: 2024 Prostate MRI - PI-RADS 4. Follow up with Urologist states patient to repeat Prostate MRI in 1 year and continue with yearly PSA levels and there is no mention of prostate cancer other than the PI-RADS score]. Should this case be abstracted?

For each of your scenarios, the medical record information indicates that the case is not reportable based on physician opinion. Do not abstract these cases.

Remember that the ambiguous terms list is to be used as a last resort. The ideal way to approach abstracting situations when the medical record is not clear is to follow up with the physician. If the physician is not available, the medical record, and any other pertinent reports (e.g., pathology, etc.) should be read closely for the required information. See page 19 in the SEER Manual, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2024/SPCSM_2024_MainDoc.pdf

 2024
20150022

Grade--Bladder: Do you use the grade stated on the pathology report for coding the grade/differentiation field for bladder and renal pelvis field? See discussion.

Please confirm correct coding for grade for papillary urothelial carcinoma of the bladder/renal pelvis and urothelial carcinoma of the bladder/renal pelvis. SEER Manual 2014 and 2015 state: "Do not use these tables to code grade for any other groups including WHO (CNS tumors), WHO/ISUP (bladder, renal pelvis), or FIGO (female gynecologic sites) grades." They also state "In transitional cell carcinoma for bladder, the terminology high grade TCC and low grade TCC are coded in the two-grade system" in the Grade section. These statements are not included in SEER Manuals prior to 2014.

Use the grade stated on the pathology report to code grade/differentiation for bladder and renal pelvis field unless the grade is stated to be WHO/ISUP grade.

2015
20081040 Reportability/Histology--Hematopoietic: If a JAK2 positive myeloproliferative disorder is reportable, how should histology be coded?

Please discuss the significance of JAK2 point mutation.

Example: Bone marrow biopsy showed hypercellular marrow with increased megakaryocytes associated with JAK2 point mutation consistent with myeloproliferative syndrome. Path comment: While the morphologic changes would be compatible with a myeloproliferative syndrome, they are not specific for this as similar findings can be seen in reactive conditions. However, a molecular diagnostic test demonstrated a positive JAK2 point mutation which would support the diagnosis of myeloproliferative syndrome. In summary, the combined histologic and molecular diagnostic findings support a myeloproliferative syndrome. The differential diagnosis would be between polycythemia vera and essential thrombocythemia. Subsequent clinical diagnosis: polycythemia vera.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Follow the instructions in the SEER manual on pages 1-4 to determine reportability.

Code the histology using all information available for the case. If the clinician reviews the case and states a particular histology based on his/her review, code that histology.

The clinician has access to all of the information available for this case. He/she uses his/her expertise to form a clinical diagnosis.

For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.

 2008
20140039

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a statement of "JAK-2 positive polycythemia" reportable? See discussion.

Polycythemia, NOS is not reportable. However, there is a statement in the Heme Manual Glossary for JAK2 that states, "When JAK2 is positive, the MPN is definitely reportable." Does a positive JAK 2 always mean there is a reportable myeloproliferative disorder or must there also be an associated statement of a reportable neoplasm (e.g., myeloproliferative disorder, polycythemia vera, or essential thrombocythemia)?

A positive JAK 2 does not always mean there is a reportable myeloproliferative disorder. There must also be an associated statement of a reportable neoplasm (e.g., myeloproliferative disorder, polycythemia vera, or essential thrombocythemia). The glossary entry will be clarified.

2014
20130090 MP/H Rules/Primary site/Histology--Colon/Rectum: How are the primary site and histology to be coded for a diagnosis of familial polyposis with malignant tumors in the sigmoid and rectum? See Discussion.

Preoperative diagnosis was familial polyposis with rectal and rectosigmoid cancer.

The pathology report from the colon resection showed:

  1. 5 mm tumor in the sigmoid. Histologic type: adenocarcinoma.

  • 1.9 cm tumor in the distal rectum. Histologic type: adenocarcinoma with signet ring cell differentiation.

  • 4 cm tumor in the proximal rectum. Histologic type: adenocarcinoma.

    • Gross description: The mucosa of the colon is tan pink with polyposis throughout; more than 1000 tan sessile polyps.

    Should this be a single primary per MP/H Rule M3, histology coded to 8220/3 [familial polyposis] per MP/H Rule H17, and primary site coded to C199?

    This case should be accessioned as a single primary. Code the primary site to the colon and rectum [C199] and the histology to adenocarcinoma in familial polyposis coli [8220/3] per MP/H Rule H17.

    For cases of familial polyposis, when the rectosigmoid or rectum are involved, assign code C199 [colon and rectum]. When the rectosigmoid or rectum are not involved, assign code C189 [colon, NOS].

    		2013
    		20130194

    Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are blood vessel tumors arising in CNS sites reportable? See Discussion.

    Previous instructions from the CDC (Cancer - Collection and Coding Clarification for CNS Tumors - NPCR) stated that non-malignant blood vessel tumors in CNS sites are reportable and should be coded to the CNS site in which they arose. SINQ 20081113 also states that a blood vessel tumor, cavernoma/cavernous hemangioma, in the brain is reportable. However, SINQ 20120034 contradicts this previous answer stating the site should be coded to C490 [blood vessel] for a blood vessel tumor (venous angioma) in the brain.

    If blood vessel tumors arising in a CNS site are no longer reportable, please specify the site/histology codes for these non-reportable tumors and when this change took place.

    Vascular tumors of the CNS are reportable when they arise in the dura or parenchyma of the CNS and should be coded accordingly. The instructions in the CDC book regarding primary site coding are not the most current instructions.SEER assumed responsibility for brain and CNS reporting instructions in 2007.

    The tumor in SINQ 20120034 is not reportable because it arises in a blood vessel. The cavernous hemangioma in SINQ 20081113 is reportable because the primary site is the white matter of the cerebral cortex.

    		 2013
    		20230079

    Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Cutaneous Melanoma: How is histology coded for a 2023 diagnosis of “early lentiginous melanoma in situ” of the skin? See Discussion.

    Previous SINQ 20091100 has a similar scenario and the instruction was to code as lentigo maligna (8742/2); however, it does not appear to be applicable to cases diagnosed after 2020.

    The WHO Blue Book does not list melanoma, lentiginous type or lentiginous melanoma in situ as an alternate term for lentigo maligna and neither do the STR or the ICD-O-3.2.

    Assign code 8742/2 (lentigo maligna) for “early lentiginous melanoma in situ.” ICD-O-3.2 lists the preferred term for 8742/2 as lentigo maligna (C44._).

    		 2023
    		20150042

    Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: Is the surgery code 42 or 52? Does it matter that the procedure states no axillary LN, but the pathology found 2 additional LN? See discussion.

     

    Procedure stated = Bilateral skin-sparing mastectomies, left axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy. On the pathology report it indicates two additional lymph nodes were removed that were not SLN. The axillary aspect measures 2 x 2 x 1 cm. Two lymph nodes are identified ranging from 0.5 up to 1 cm. The lymph nodes are bisected and entirely submitted. Final Diagnosis Left breast, mastectomy including nipple: no residual carcinoma; FINAL DIAGNOSIS for LN = Lymph nodes, left axillary sentinel #1; excision: Two lymph nodes examined - negative for tumor (0/2); Two lymph nodes - negative for tumor (0/2)

    Assign surgery of primary site code 42. It is possible to obtain lymph nodes in a mastectomy specimen without an axillary dissection. Remember to capture the excised lymph nodes in the scope of lymph node surgery field.

    		2015
    		20150067

    MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney: What is the correct histology for this diagnosis? See discussion.

    Procedure: Nephrectomy

    Laterality: Left

    Tumor type: SOLID VARIANT RENAL CELL CARCINOMA

    Nuclear grade: High grade (3/4)

    Histologic grade: Poorly differentiated

    Pattern of growth: Solid

    Tumor size: 5x4.5x4cm

    Local invasion: Present

    Renal vein invasion: None

    Surgical margins: Negative

    Non-neoplastic kidney: Unremarkable

    Adrenal gland: Not submitted

    Lymph nodes: Not present

    Pathologic stage: T1b

    There are solid sheets of tumor cells without papillary structure. The tumor stains positive for Pax-2, negative for Ecadherin, P63 and CK7, consistent with renal cell carcinoma, solid variant.

    Assign histology code 8312, renal cell ca, NOS. There is no specific code for the solid variant of renal cell carcinoma.

    		2015
    		20180105

    2018 Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the appropriate histology code for the case below in the Discussion section? Is there a difference between adenocarcinoma in situ (bronchioloalveolar carcinoma), non-mucinous type (8252/2) and adenocarcinoma in-situ, mucinous? See Discussion.

    Procedure: Wedge, resection specimen, Laterality: Right, Tumor site: Right upper lobe, Tumor size: 1.0 cm in greatest dimension, Histologic type: Adenocarcinoma in-situ, mucinous, Histologic grade: N/A, Visceral pleura invasion: Not identified, Tumor extension: N/A, Margins: Uninvolved, Lymphocytosis.

    Assign 8253/2 for adenocarcinoma in situ, mucinous. New codes were added in 2018 for mucinous adenocarcinoma in situ for lung cancer only as all cases were not invasive. Pathologist are discouraged from using the term BAC. In-situ lung tumors can now be identified as either mucinous or non-mucinous and the appropriate ICD-O code should be assigned based on diagnosis.

    		 2018