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: 09/01/2025 15:52 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20091110 MP/H Rules--Bladder: Should an invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder diagnosed in 2004 followed by an in situ urothelial carcinoma of the ureter diagnosed in 2008 be reported as multiple primaries per the three-year guideline in Rule M7 or a single primary per the subsite guideline in Rule M8? See Discussion. Rule M7 states, "Tumors diagnosed more than three (3) years apart are multiple primaries." Should this rule be modified to say, "Bladder tumors diagnosed more than three (3) years apart are multiple primaries"? Does Rule M7 apply to only bladder tumors or does this rule apply to tumors in any of the urinary sites similarly to Rule M8 which states, "Urothelial tumors in two or more of the following sites are a single primary: Renal pelvis (C659) Ureter (C669) Bladder (C670-C679) Urethra/prostatic urethra (C680)"?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M7 pertains to renal pelvis, ureter, bladder and other urinary sites as defined by the topography codes listed in the header of these rules.

An invasive urothelial bladder tumor followed more than three years later by an in situ TCC of the ureter are reported separate primaries. Rule M8 applies when the tumors in these sites are diagnosed within three years of each other.

2009
20130214 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Does Rule PH20 apply if a patient with lymphoma has bilateral axillary and bilateral inguinal lymph node involvement? Rule PH20 states to code the primary site to the specific lymph node region when multiple lymph node chains within the same region as defined by ICD-O-3 are involved. Note 1 further states that one is to use this rule when there is bilateral involvement of lymph nodes.

Rule PH21 applies to this situation which states to code the primary site to multiple lymph node regions, NOS (C778) when multiple lymph node regions, as defined by ICD-O-3, are involved and it is not possible to identify the lymph node region where the lymphoma originated. Axillary nodes are coded to C773 and inguinal nodes are coded to C774. There are two lymph node regions involved. Code the primary site to C778 [multiple lymph nodes].

If this patient had only bilateral axillary OR only bilateral inguinal nodes are involved, then PH20 would have applied and you would code to the specific lymph node region mentioned.

2013
20130180 Histology--Pancreas: What is the difference between pancreatic endocrine neoplasm (PanNETs) [8240/3] and the new ICD-O-3 terms pancreatic endocrine tumor, benign [8150/0] and pancreatic endocrine tumor, malignant [8150/3]? See Discussion. SEER Inquiry 20120035 discusses the reportability of pancreatic endocrine neoplasm (PanNETs) tumors.

The difference is that 8150 is for islet cell tumors. The preferred name was changed by WHO/IARC to reflect the current language used by pathologists to describe islet cell tumors [8150].

The 8240 histology code added the neuroendocrine tumor, grade 1, low or well differentiated terms to the carcinoid ICD-O name.

Islet cell tumors are more aggressive than the pancreatic NET tumors. Treatment and prognosis are determined by the histologic type. While the histology code 8150 is not new, the histology name has been updated.

2013
20061123 Reportability--Colon: Is a pathologically confirmed "tubulovillous adenoma with high grade dysplasia" reportable if clinical diagnosis at the time of the subsequent re-biopsy states "follow-up for colon polyps with ca in situ"? See Discussion. SINQ 20000245 states that high grade dysplasia is not synonymous with behavior code 2 (in situ). However, the 2004 SEER manual states that "cases clinically diagnosed are reportable. If the physician treats a patient for cancer in spite of the negative biopsy, accession the case." A pathologic diagnosis has priority over a clinical diagnosis. According to the pathologist, this case is not reportable. A re-biopsy is not treatment. 2006
20091073 Grade: Can FIGO grade be used to code Grade/Differentiation? See Discussion. SINQ 20020059 says not to use FIGO grade to code differentiation. It also says SEER is evaluating whether the ICD-O-3 sixth digit differentiation codes accurately represent the FIGO grade. For the time being, do not code FIGO grade. What is the result of the evaluation? Any new information regarding FIGO grade?

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.Do not code FIGO grade in the grade field. The conversion from a three-grade system to a four-grade system does not work for FIGO grade three. Since FIGO G3 includes both Poorly differentiated and undifferentiated, it cannot be converted.

FIGO grade may be captured in a CS site specific factor in the future.

 2009
20081132 MP/H Rules--Breast: What is the histology code for a breast tumor that is ductal ca with focal squamous differentiation? See Discussion. SINQ 20021062 states for cases Dx'd prior to 2007, use 8570. Is 8570 also used when the squamous differentiation is focal? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H14 and code the histology 8500 [duct carcinoma]. Ignore histologies described as "focal," "focus," or "foci." This instruction will be added to the histology rules in the upcoming revision of the MP/H manual. 2008
20061053 Diagnostic Confirmation: How is this field coded for a case with a cytology that is suspicious for ductal carcinoma and the clinical diagnosis is carcinoma? See Discussion. SINQ 20031152 states that histology for this type of case is to be coded per the clinical diagnosis of "carcinoma." Does it follow then that Diagnostic Confirmation is to be coded 8 (clinical diagnosis only)? Would we code Diagnostic Confirmation differently if the clinician stated that the diagnosis of malignancy was confirmed by the suspicious cytology?

Code diagnostic confirmation as 8 [clincial diagnosis] when there is a suspicious cytology and a physician's clinical diagnosis. Do not accession cases with only suspicious cytology.

Code diagnostic confirmation as 8 when the clinician's diagnosis of malignancy is confirmed by the suspicious cytology. It is still a clinical diagnosis made by the physician using the information available for the case.

 2006
20140014 First course treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Anus: Would infrared coagulation be coded as treatment for AIN III of the anus/anal canal? See discussion. SINQ 20051064 indicates infrared coagulation is not treatment for cancer. Internet search explains that infrared coagulation delivers heat to destroy the tissue so it can be removed. In our region it is currently used to treat internal and external anal low grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) and high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL). While it is understandable that this wouldn't be coded as treatment for an invasive anal primary, could it be treatment for an in situ tumor? If it is treatment, should it be coded under Surgery code 15 The answer to SINQ 20050164 still applies. Do not code infrared coagulation as cancer treatment. It is used to coagulate blood vessels and not to destroy cancer tissue. 2014
20140002 Reportability--Appendix: Is a pathologic final diagnosis of an appendix with "well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (carcinoid)" reportable? See discussion. SINQ 20130027 states that "well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" of the appendix is reportable (8240/3) while "carcinoid" tumors of the appendix are not reportable (8240/1). Please explain the difference between "well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" of the appendix and a "carcinoid" of the appendix.

Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor of the appendix is reportable. The difference is terminology. "Carcinoid" is listed in ICD-O-3 as a /1 for appendix making it non-reportable.

When both terms are used, ask for clarification from the pathologist. Failing that, accept the reportable terminology and report the case.

 2014
20130051 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when biopsies of the left and right tonsils show diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and there is no other evidence of involvement? See Discussion. Scans are negative for lymphadenopathy and the bone marrow biopsy was benign. Radiation Oncology staged this as localized bilateral tonsil primary lymphoma.

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

This case should be accessioned as a single primary, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3] of bilateral tonsils. Per Rule M2, a single histology is a single primary. Note 1 for Rule M2 states bilateral involvement of lymph nodes and/or organs is still a single 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.

2013