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: 07/11/2025 22:26 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20140001 Grade--Brain and CNS: How should grade be coded for a pineal parenchymal tumor of "intermediate differentiation"? See discussion.

Per a web search, the term "pineal parenchymal tumor of intermediate differentiation" refers to a pineal tumor with the histology/behavior that falls somewhere between the category of pineocytoma (9361/1) and pineoblastoma (9362/3). In other words, it is a malignant tumor that is a WHO grade II/III neoplasm because it's histologic features and behavior are not quite equivalent to a pineoblastoma (WHO grade IV). Thus, it appears the expression "intermediate differentiation" is actually referring to a type of WHO classification system rather than the grade field.

Should the type of documentation provided in pathology report be used to imply the grade field is being referenced and thus be coded to 2 for "intermediate differentiation" or should grade be coded to 9 based on the information found during the web search?

Code the grade as 2 based on instruction #8 in the revised grade instructions for 2014.

Do not use WHO grade to code the grade field for CNS tumors.

 2014
20091111 Grade--Breast: How is this field coded for an "invasive ductal carcinoma, well differentiated, low nuclear grade"? Assign code 1 [Grade 1, well differentiated]. Use the table in the 2007 SEER Manual on page C-607. Both "low grade" and "well differentiated" are coded 1 in the grade field. 2009
20120004 Grade--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is grade coded for a malignant non-Hodgkin lymphoma, large B-cell type, with features consistent with T-cell rich variant?

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

Code grade to 6 [B-cell] for the histology malignant non-Hodgkin lymphoma, large B-cell type, with features consistent with T-cell rich variant [9680/3]. Under the Definition section for histology code 9680/3 it states there are morphologic variants of the disease: centroblastic, immunoblastic, plasmablastic, T-cell/histiocyte-rich, anaplastic.

Rule G3 in the Heme Manual confirms the grade listed in the Heme DB under its Grade section for the histology 9680/3. While the patient presented with a variant of DLBCL that is T-cell/histiocyte rich, it is still a B-cell phenotype. The grade is coded accordingly.

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
20130095 Grade--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is grade coded for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, NOS? See Discussion. The Heme DB indicates histology code 9811/3 [B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma] is the current histology code to use for the now obsolete term of acute lymphoblastic leukemia [9835/3]. The Heme DB entry for histology code 9835/3 states to "Code grade specified by pathologist. If no grade specified, code 9." The Heme DB entry for the current histology code, 9811/3, states to code the grade to 6 [B-cell]. Should grade be coded to 6 [B-cell] for all cases coded to histology code 9811/3?

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

Code the grade to 6 [B-cell] for all cases of 9811/3 [B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma] per Rule G3 in the Heme Manual.

Acute lymphoblastic leukemia, NOS [9835/3] is an obsolete code and cannot be used for cases diagnosed 2010 and later. The Heme DB indicates the correct histology code is 9811/3 and grade 6 [B-cell] for cases diagnosed 2010 and later.

For cases of acute lymphoblastic lymphoma, NOS [9835/3] diagnosed prior to 2010, use the pathology report information to code the grade. Code the grade as 9 [unknown] if the pathology report does not specify the grade.

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
20100104 Grade--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is the phrase "aberrant T-cell expression" enough to code the grade field to T-cell when the final diagnosis on the pathology report is "AML with aberrant T-cell antigen expression"? Yes. Code grade to 5 [T-cell]. The T cell receptor, or TCR, is a molecule found on the surface of T lymphocytes (or T cells). 2010
20130088 Grade--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should Grade be coded to 5 [T-cell] or 9 [cell type not determined, not stated, not applicable] for anaplastic large cell lymphoma, NOS [9714/3]? See Discussion.

Under the Grade section in the Heme DB for anaplastic large cell lymphoma, NOS it indicates the following:

"Grade - Code grade specified by pathologist. If no grade specified, code 9."

There is no reference in the Grade section that we should look at the Abstractor Notes or a specific Module in the Heme DB for additional information. However, in the Abstractor Notes section it states, "Grade is T-cell (5) unless pathologist specifically designates as a B-cell (see G2 rule)." These two statements are conflicting. Which is the correct grade?

Assign code 5 [T-cell] for anaplastic large cell lymphoma [9714/3] unless the pathologist specifies that the histology is a B-cell disease process. See Grade rule G2, Note 2.

In the Heme DB, there is a default value in the Grade field for histologies that do not have a grade specified. However, this particular histology does not default to code 9. There was an error in the Grade section of the 2010 and 2012 versions of Heme DB that has now been corrected in the latest release.

2013
20110080 Grade--Kidney, renal pelvis: How is this field coded for a non-invasive high grade papillary urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis? See Discussion. Per instructions in the 2010 SEER Manual, Appendix C, Coding Guidelines for Bladder, "Code grade 9 (unknown) for non-invasive urothelial (transitional) tumors." The Coding Guidelines listed under Renal Pelvis, Ureter are only for Kidney [C649]. Do the grade instructions under bladder apply to ALL non-invasive urothelial tumors, or are we to use the kidney grading instructions to code grade for renal pelvis and ureter malignancies? Code grade to 4 [high grade]. Follow the instructions in the main part of the 2010 SEER Manual under the data item Grade (pages 73 - 76). There are no specific instructions for coding grade for renal pelvis. Apply the general instructions in the absence of site-specific instructions. 2011
20140004 Grade--Liver: How should grade be coded for a liver lesion treated with radio frequency ablation (RFA) followed by a transplant showing moderately differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma? See discussion. The SEER Manual emphasizes the importance of coding grade only prior to neoadjuvant treatment as systemic treatment and radiation can alter a tumor's grade. This patient did not have neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiation, but did undergo a prior surgical procedure (RFA) in an attempt to destroy tumor tissue. The subsequent transplant showed residual moderately differentiated HCC. For this case, record the grade specified even though it is after RFA. RFA is not systemic or radiation treatment and should not alter the grade. 2014
20130009 Grade--Pancreas: Can the grade be coded when a biopsy is taken from the part of a primary tumor that has contiguously extended into an adjacent organ or structure? See Discussion. The grade rule states to code grade from tissue removed from the primary tumor only, never from a metastatic site or a site of recurrence. There is no mention of whether the grade can be coded if only the contiguous site of involvement is biopsied when a single tumor directly extends to an adjacent tissue or organ. For example, is grade coded to 2 when a pancreatic tumor extends into the duodenum, and the duodenal biopsy confirms moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma consistent with a pancreatic primary? Or does the primary organ/site have to be biopsied in order to be able to code grade?

For one tumor involving a contiguous site, when there is no tissue specimen available from the primary site, you may code the grade based on the tissue from the tumor in the contiguous site.

This instruction is included in the upcoming grade instruction document.

 2013
20091112 Grade-Breast: How is this field coded for a breast tumor described as "intermediate nuclear grade"? See Discussion.

Guidelines for selecting grade for breast primaries prioritize nuclear grade right after B&R grade. The conversion table displays only numeric values for nuclear grade. How is grade coded for tumors in which nuclear grade is described by terminology? Does it make a difference if the tumor is invasive or in situ?

Example 1: Ductal carcinoma, intermediate nuclear grade.

Example 2: Ductal carcinoma, high nuclear grade.

Example 3: Ductal carcinoma, moderate nuclear grade.

Example 4: DCIS, intermediate nuclear grade.

Use the table on page C-607 of the 2007 SEER manual. The terms "low," "intermediate," and "high" appear in the column labeled "BR Grade." Use this column to determine the appropriate grade code when grade is described using these terms. If the grade of an in situ tumor is described using these terms, use the table to determine the appropriate code for the grade field. 2009