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: 05/15/2026 04:25 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20091123

Reportability: Is a tumor reportable if the pathology report indicates a non-reportable diagnosis at the time the specimen is removed but subsequent clinical statements state the patient had a reportable tumor? See Discussion.

The 2007 SEER Manual (page 3) states that cases diagnosed clinically are reportable. Exception 2 states if enough time has passed that it is reasonable to assume the physician has seen the negative pathology report, but the clinician continues to call this a reportable disease, accession the case.

SEER reporting guidelines state that severe dysplasia is not reportable, however, many clinicians regard it to be equivalent to carcinoma in situ.

Example 1: In 09-2007 the pathology report for excisional biopsy of right floor of mouth states the final diagnosis is severe dysplasia. At the time, the case is not accessioned based on non-reportable pathology. Patient is subsequently admitted in 3-09. According to the clinical history the patient was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma in 2007 and treated with laser. Is this reportable? If yes, how is behavior to be coded? How is "Ambiguous Terminology at Diagnosis" to be coded?

Example 2: In 2-08, the pathology report for a punch biopsy of a skin lesion states the final diagnosis is atypical melanocytic hyperplasia. In 3-08, patient is admitted for re-excision. The clinical diagnosis states re-excision being done for melanoma in situ.

Reference: SINQ 20061123

A tumor that is non-reportable based on the pathology report diagnosis should not be accessioned if later clinician statements mistakenly refer to it as a reportable tumor. The exception in the 2007 SEER manual on page 3 is intended to allow the registrar to accession a case when the clinician actually disagrees with the pathology report and clinically diagnoses a reportable tumor.

 2009
20091124 CS Eval--Lung: How is the CS Reg Nodes Eval field to be coded when the FNA of a paratracheal lymph node is positive for adenocarcinoma and the patient subsequently undergoes neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy followed by an excision of multiple lymph node fragments that show adenocarcinoma? See Discussion. The CSv1 scheme for lung shows that code 1 under CS Reg Nodes Eval is a path staging basis. However, the definition for code 1 also states that no regional lymph nodes were removed for examination. Would we use code 1 because the case represents path staging basis? If we select code 5 because regional lymph nodes were dissected, the staging basis would be clinical. If we select code 6, the staging basis would be y.

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.

Use code "6" for the CS LN evaluation field. As explained on page 113 in the 2007 SEER Manual, when post-operative disease is more extensive despite neoadjuvant therapy, this can be coded in the evaluation field. In this case, only an FNA was done on lymph nodes pre-operatively, but actual lymph nodes were removed and documented in the post-neoadjuvant excision of the lymph nodes which documented that they are histologically positive -- proving that the neoadjuvant therapy did not work.

 2009
20091125

Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Thyroid: Should a thyroid case be accessioned based only on a cytology that is consistent with papillary carcinoma? See Discussion.

Instructions in the 2007 SPCSM state that we are not to accession a case based only on a suspicious cytology. Does this rule apply only to the term "suspicious" or does it apply to all ambiguous terms? Example: FNA of thyroid nodule is consistent with papillary carcinoma.

 Do not accession the case if the cytology is the only information in the medical record. The phrase "Do not accession a case based only on suspicious cytology" means that the cytology is the only information in the record. If there is other information that supports the suspicion of cancer (radiology reports, physician statements, surgery), then accession the case. The phrase "suspicious cytology" includes all of the ambiguous terms. 2009
20091126 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Vagina: How many primaries should be abstracted for a patient with a complex history of multiple occurrences of vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VAIN III) between 2001 and 2008 and invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCCA) of the vagina diagnosed in 2006 and again in 2008? See Discussion. Patient had VAIN III in March of 2001. She had a partial vaginectomy and then continues to have laser surgery in 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2006 for recurrences. In 12/2006 she is diagnosed with SCCA of the vagina with microinvasion (new primary). Then in 2/2008 she has VAIN III again -- new primary according to rule M10 (more than 1 year later). An invasive SCCA of the vagina is again diagnosed in 9/2008. Is this another new primary per rule M15 (invasive after in situ)? Every instance in 2008 is called a recurrence, but we disregard that statement.

There are two primaries according to the information provided.

1. VAIN III March 2001.

2. SCCA of vagina Dec. 2006 (invasive tumor following an in situ

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the MP/H rules apply to new tumors, which means that there has been a disease-free interval at some point. In this case, the patient has never been declared disease-free (NED) using the information provided in the question. The consistent recurrence of VAIN is typical of this disease.

 2009
20091127

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are to be accessioned for a patient with Neurofibromatosis 2 (NF2) who presents with meningiomas on the left and right side of the brain and multiple meningiomas of the spinal cord? See Discussion.

We have a patient with NF2 who also has meningiomas diagnosed on the left and right side of the brain as well as multiple meningiomas of the spinal cord. Are the meningiomas all one primary (separate from the NF2): C70.9 and 9530/1?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is four primaries.

Report NF2 because it occurs with reportable neoplasms. Note: Report NF only once per patient.

Per MP/H Benign CNS Rule M4, the meningiomas of the meninges/brain (C70.0) and meninges/CNS (C70.1) are multiple primaries. Code the meningiomas of the spine to the histology to 9530/1 [Multiple meningiomas] (Rule H6) because there are multiple tumors in the spine.

Per Rule M5, the meningiomas of the right and left side of the brain are multiple primaries. Code of each to the histology 9530/0 [Meningioma, NOS] per Rule H2 because they are separate primaries (assuming there is one tumor on each side of the brain).

 2009
20091128

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be accessioned when a patient was diagnosed with breast carcinoma in 2001 and was subsequently diagnosed with a mammary carcinoma in a chest wall mass in 2008? See Discussion.

Patient was diagnosed with invasive lobular carcinoma of the right breast in April 2001. Following modified radical mastectomy in May 2001, the patient was disease free. In December 2008 the patient was diagnosed with a right chest wall mass, invasive poorly differentiated mammary carcinoma with lobular origin. If this is a new primary in 2008, would we code the primary site to breast or chest wall? Please see I&R answers 25924, 22163 and 26155 with similar case scenarios that give two different answers. One response indicates coding this type of scenario as new primary to chest wall and the other two responses indicate this should not be a new primary because the chest wall is a metastatic site. The pathology report does not state that this is metastatic and it is unknown if there is breast tissue left behind at the chest wall.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this case is a single primary. The chest wall (NOS) is a metastatic site for breast cancer. There is no mention of residual breast tissue, so the 2008 diagnosis cannot be a new primary.

"Chest wall" is an ambiguous term. It can mean the internal chest wall or the external chest wall. When the path report states that the "recurrence" is in residual breast tissue, this is most likely the external chest wall and the residual breast tissue is part of the breast not removed by the MRM. In contrast, skin or the chest wall, NOS, are regional metastases.

 2009
20091129 Primary Site--Breast: What subsite is to be coded for a case of invasive Paget disease of the nipple with an infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the lower inner quadrant? Code C50.9 [Breast, NOS]. Code the last digit of the primary site to '9' for single primaries when multiple tumors arise in different subsites of the same anatomic site and the point of origin cannot be determined. Nipple [C50.0] and LIQ [C50.3] fit this rule. This is a single primary per MP/H Breast Rule M9. 2009
20091130

MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What is the correct histology code and MP/H rule used for 1) infiltrating ductal carcinoma, mucinous type and 2) infiltrating ductal carcinoma with features of tubular carcinoma? See Discussion.

There is confusion as to which rule applies. Should the histologies be coded to 8480/3 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] and 8211/3 [tubular adenocarcinoma] respectively per rule H12? Rule H12 states to code the most specific histologic term; "type" and "with features of" are used in the pathologic diagnosis and are both terms that can be used to code the specific histology. Or would the histology be coded 8523 for both examples per rule H17 because neither histologic codes 8480/3 or 8211/3 are included as examples of duct carcinomas, nor are they included in Table 2?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code 8523 [infiltrating duct mixed with other types of carcinoma] for

1. Infiltrating ductal carcinoma, mucinous type and

2. Infiltrating ductal carcinoma with features of tubular carcinoma

The infiltrating ductal types in Rule H12 are listed (8022, 8035, 8501-8508) and do not include mucinous or tubular. We cannot use this rule. The first rule that applies to these single tumors is H17, code to 8523. If you look up 8523 in the numerical morphology section of ICD-O-3, you will see similar examples included in the definition of this code.

2009
20091131 Multiplicity Counter/Type of Multiple Tumors--Breast: How are these fields coded when a patient underwent a lumpectomy demonstrating two measured foci of invasive ductal carcinoma (1.5 cm and 3 mm) and "focally seen" in situ ductal carcinoma (DCIS) followed by a re-excision that is positive for 1.5 mm focus of residual invasive carcinoma? See Discussion.

Lumpectomy path shows two foci of invasive ductal carcinoma, 1.5 cm & 3 mm sizes, and CAP summary lists "DCIS: focally seen", no further description. The re-excision pathology specimen finds a 1.5 mm focus of residual invasive carcinoma, very close to the new inferior margin (so registrar assumed this was probably not part of the previously excised mass), and no mention of any more in situ.

Can we assume the DCIS was associated with/part of the invasive tumors because it was not measured or described separately? If we say there are 3 tumors (for the measured invasive foci), should Type of Multiple Tumors be coded 30 [In situ and invasive] or 40 [Multiple invasive]?

Code 03 [3 tumors] in the multiplicity counter. Do not count the "focally seen" DCIS because it was not measured.

Code 30 [In situ and invasive] in Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary. The single primary reported for this case is a combination of in situ and invasive tumors.

2009
20100002 Reportability/Histology--Colon: Is a colon tumor reportable if the pathology report final diagnosis is high grade dysplasia but CAP protocol histologic type designation is adenocarcinoma in situ? See Discussion. The microscopic description and the final diagnosis on the pathology report indicate the tumor is a large tubulovillous adenoma of the cecum with focal surface high grade dysplasia. The CAP protocol histologic type designation is adenocarcinoma in situ and pT designation is pTis. Which has priority? Is the case reportable?

The case is reportable because carcinoma in situ is stated. Carcinoma in situ has higher priority than severe dysplasia or high grade dysplasia.

Per AJCC 6th edition colon chapter, the terms "high grade dysplasia" or "severe dysplasia" may be synonymous with carcinoma in situ. Because the pathologist gave carcinoma in situ information within the CAP, (s)he is apparently defining the dysplasia as in situ carcinoma.

 2010