Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20160051 | Diagnostic confirmation: When a CT guided Fine Needle Aspiration is performed and the pathology report indicates smears and cell block were prepared, if the diagnosis is positive for cancer, can you code diagnostic confirmation as 2 (positive cytology) because of the cell block? |
Yes, assign diagnostic confirmation code 2 for diagnosis based on smears and cell block from CT guided FNA. This reply pertains to solid tumors. |
N/A | Diagnostic confirmation | 2016 | |
|
|
20160052 | Summary Stage 2000--Lymphoma: How is SEER SS2000 coded for an ocular adnexal lymphoma when it extends from the primary site to adjacent sites that are still orbital structures? See Discussion. |
In this case, the lymphoma arose in the posterior orbit and the primary site was coded as C696 (orbit, NOS). The mass directly extended to at least one "adjacent" site, the lacrimal gland. Should SS2000 be coded to 1 (localized) or 5 (regional, NOS) when an ocular adnexal lymphoma arises in the posterior orbit and extends to involve the lacrimal gland? Although both the posterior orbit and the lacrimal gland are parts of the orbit, they have separate ICD-O-3 topography codes. Should extension to multiple sites within the orbit be classified as localized disease?
The issue is what constitutes "adjacent" structures for a tumor that arises in the orbit. In an article published by the Indian Journal of Opthamology it states, "According to the Ann-Arbor staging system, lymphoma confined to the orbit is designated as Stage I, involvement of adjacent structures (sinuses, tonsil and nose) makes it Stage II." Does SEER agree with this definition of "adjacent" structures? Or are the lacrimal gland, ciliary body, retina, conjunctiva and/or choroid "adjacent" structures for a lymphoma stated to arise in the posterior orbit? |
Updated May 2026 For cases diagnosed prior to 2018, assign SEER SS2000 code 5 (Regional, NOS) in the Lymphoma chapter for a lymphoma of orbit extending to lacrimal gland. In SEER SS2000, this is Stage IIE: Direct extension to adjacent organs or tissues. For cases diagnosed 2018+, see Summary Stage 2018, Lymphoma Ocular Adnexa chapter, Code 2 (Regional Extension)
|
Lymphoma | N/A | 2016 |
|
|
20160053 | MP/H Rules/Histology: How is the histology coded for an invasive adenocarcinoma arising in a papilloma with high-grade dysplasia? See Discussion. |
Patient has a perihilar bile duct primary with a microscopic focus of invasive moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma arising in a large papilloma. The MP/H Rules do not address adenocarcinomas arising in a papilloma, only adenocarcinomas arising in an adenoma (or polyp). Should the histology be coded as 8140 for the invasive adenocarcinoma component? Or should the matrix principle be applied and the histology coded as a malignant glandular papilloma (8260/3)? |
Assign 8503/3 for invasive adenocarcinoma arising in a papilloma with high-grade dysplasia, perihilar bile duct primary. Neither ICD-O-3 nor the WHO classification have a code for this specific histology; however, our expert pathologist consultant states 8503/3 is the best available choice based on pages 264 and 273 in the WHO Digestive system classification. |
N/A | Histology | 2016 |
|
|
20160054 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Melanoma: How many melanoma primaries should be abstracted if, during the workup for a metastatic melanoma of an unknown cutaneous site, an in situ melanoma is also discovered? See Discussion. |
Patient has diagnosis of melanoma with spindle cell features found in a right lower lobectomy specimen. Chart notes indicate this is metastatic from a cutaneous primary of unknown site. Further work up includes a biopsy of the tip of the nose, which is diagnostic for in situ melanoma. Should this be abstracted as two separate primaries, one for an invasive melanoma of unknown primary site and the other for an in situ melanoma of the skin on the tip of the nose? Which MP/H Rule would apply? |
Yes, abstract this as two separate primaries, an invasive melanoma of unknown primary site and an in situ melanoma of the skin on the tip of the nose. Rule M3 applies. |
Melanoma | N/A | 2016 |
|
|
20160055 | Reportability--Bone: Is an "atypical cartilaginous tumor" reportable? See Discussion. |
Patient had a core needle biopsy of the right acetabulum. Final diagnosis on the path report is: Atypical cartilaginous tumor (formerly chondrosarcoma, grade 1).
Is this cell type reportable? If so, is it reportable only because the pathologist recorded clarifying text in parentheses? If the text in the parentheses was not available, is the histology "atypical cartilaginous tumor" reportable? |
Atypical cartilaginous tumor of bone is not reportable. The WHO terminology is "atypical cartilagenous tumor/chondrosarcoma grade I." WHO classifies this entity as low malignant potential (behavior code /1).
Chondrosarcoma grade II or grade III is reportable based on the WHO classification of malignant (behavior code /3). |
N/A | N/A | 2016 |
|
|
20160056 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: How should histology be coded for a testicular primary with a combination of teratoma, yolk sac tumor and embryonal carcinoma? See discussion.
|
Patient had a radical orchiectomy with the final diagnosis of "Mixed germ cell tumor with the following features -- histologic type: Mixed germ cell tumor (teratoma 50%, yolk sac tumor 25%, and embryonal 25%)." |
Assign 9085/3. Code this combination of teratoma, yolk sac tumor, and embryonal tumor in the testis to mixed germ cell tumor (9085/3) based on the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Male Genital Organs. |
N/A | Histology | 2016 |
|
|
20160057 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Prostate: What is the histology code for a prostate case whose histology reads “adenoca with mixed ductal and acinar variants? |
Assign 8523/3.
The 2013 revision to ICD-O-3 has a new code for mixed acinar ductal carcinoma; however, this new code will not be implemented in the U.S. until 2018 or later. Page 7 of the Guidelines for ICD-O-3 Update Implementation document released by NAACCR 1/1/2014 instructs us to use 8523/3 in the meantime. |
Prostate | Histology | 2016 | |
|
|
20160061 | Reportability/Behavior--Small intestine: Is a carcinoid tumor, described as benign, reportable? See Discussion.
|
A segmental resection pathology report states "benign mucosal endocrine proliferation consistent with a 0.3 cm duodenal carcinoid tumor." The diagnosis comment further states, "the separate small endocrine lesion is histologically benign, consistent with a 3 mm carcinoid tumor." This seems to be an example of a description of a microcarcinoid tumor referenced in SINQ 20160011. However, in this new case the pathologist specifically states the tumor is benign.
The WHO definition of microcarcinoid indicates this is a precursor lesion, which seems to indicate it is not malignant. However, SEER's previous answer stated we should report these tumors because the ICD-O-3 definition of carcinoid is 8240/3. Do you think that the mention of the term "benign" in the pathology report is actually related to the size of this lesion? Is the reference to benign mucosal endocrine proliferation referring to the WHO classification (making the case reportable as stated in SINQ 20160011), or is this a situation in which we should apply the Matrix Rule and the case is nonreportable? |
This carcinoid tumor, described as benign, is not reportable. According to our expert pathologist consultant, this case is not reportable because the pathologist uses "benign" to describe the mucosal endocrine proliferation and based on that, the neuroendocrine cell proliferation is hyperplasia/benign - not reportable. |
N/A | Behavior | 2016 |
|
|
20160062 | Grade--Kidney: Should WHO/ISUP grade for renal cell carcinoma be coded for cases diagnosed 2016 and later? See discussion.
|
The 2016 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System appears to be moving away from using Fuhrman grading toward using WHO/ISUP grade. These seem like similar 4 grade staging systems; however, the SEER Manual specifically states to not use the Special Grade System table for WHO/ISUP. We are seeing the WHO/ISUP grade being used on 2016 pathology reports.
Examples of new grading for renal cell carcinomas Histologic type: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma Histologic grade (WHO/ISUP 2016): Grade 3 in a background of 2 (of 4). And Histologic type: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma Histologic grade (ISUP): Grade 2. |
Do not record WHO/ISUP grade in the grade/differentiation field.
Designated fields for this grade system are being proposed for future implementation. |
Kidney, renal pelvis | N/A | 2016 |
|
|
20160064 | Behavior--Prostate: What is the correct behavior of intraductal carcinoma from a prostate biopsy with a Gleason score 4+4=8. While highly aggressive, but not suggestive of invasion, coding behavior as /2 seems inappropriate. |
WHO classifies intraductal carcinoma of the prostate 8500/2. According to WHO, "the hallmark of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate is a proliferation of prostate carcinoma cells that is within and may significantly expand the native prostatic ducts and acini, with the basal cell layer at least partially preserved." Further, differentiation between intraductal carcinoma and infiltrating high-grade carcinoma of the prostate may require basal cell stains. Under Prognosis, WHO states: " intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on prostate biopsies is often associated with high-grade cancer (with a mean Gleason score of 8) ." So while it may seem counter-intuitive, assign behavior code /2 when the diagnosis is intraductal carcinoma of the prostate. |
Prostate | Behavior | 2016 |
An official website of the United States government
