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: 02/07/2026 05:26 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20180029

Reportability--Skin: Is early/evolving lentigo maligna reportable?

As of 01/01/2021, early or evolving melanoma in situ, or any other early or evolving melanoma, is reportable.

 2018
20180026

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned when a prophylactic mastectomy reveals a final diagnosis of invasive tubular carcinoma, but the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Protocol includes ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) sized separately and it is not clear if these are different tumors? See Discussion.

The patient was incidentally diagnosed with cancer on a prophylactic mastectomy, so there are no positive imaging findings to correlate the number of tumors/masses. The final diagnosis was invasive tubular carcinoma, and referred to the CAP Protocol. The CAP notes: However, it does not specify whether the single contiguous focus also includes the in situ component. The CAP goes on to note DCIS was present: The gross description does not provide any indication of either a single or multiple tumors/masses/lesions, though it was referred to as "Lesion 1" in the gross description with no indication of other lesions.

The format of the CAP Protocol frequently does not specify whether the DCIS is a separate measured tumor, or if it is a component of the invasive tumor. This makes it difficult to determine whether the DCIS should be a separate primary when the invasive tumor is not also a type of ductal carcinoma. Per both the 2007 MP/H and 2018 Solid Tumor Rules, an invasive tubular carcinoma and a ductal carcinoma in situ would be multiple primaries if they were multiple tumors. Should we default to Rule M1: Abstract a single primary when it is not possible to determine if there is a single or multiple tumors? Or should we assume these are separate tumors because they were both sized, the focality only described a single invasive tumor, and the tumors are not both ductal carcinomas?

Accession a single primary using Solid Tumor Rule M3. Based on the information provided, this was described as "Lesion 1' with no other lesions noted in the gross description. If the DCIS was a separate tumor, this would have been noted by the pathologist.

Reminder, the breast CAP protocol is a checklist for pathologists to note their findings while reviewing the slides and/or specimen. The findings and notes should be consolidated into a final/synoptic report.

 2018
20180024

Primary site--Colon: What is the correct topography code for appendiceal orifice? See Discussion.

From a number of definitions reviewed, it seems unclear if it's part of the appendix or the cecum of the colon. For example: The cecum is usually located in the right iliac fossa. In the pole of the cecum, there is often the appearance of fusion of the three teniae coli around the appendix, giving rise to the tri-radiate fold (Mercedes Benz sign), but the anatomy can be variable. The most reliable landmarks of the cecum are the appendiceal orifice and ileocecal valve. The appendiceal orifice is usually an unimpressive slit, often crescentic in shape. The ileocecal valve is made up of the superior and inferior lips (usually not seen en face) and is the gateway leading into the terminal ileum. It is located on the prominent ileocecal fold encircling the cecum, between 3 and 5 cm distal to the cecal pole. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212097113701730)

Assign C180, Cecum, when the neoplasm originates in the appendiceal orifice. The appendiceal orifice is a landmark in the cecum. During colonoscopy, visualization of the appendiceal orifice indicates that the entire colon was examined, from the anus to the cecum.

 2018
20180023

Reportability/Behavior: Is myxoinflammatory fibroblastic sarcoma (MIFS) reportable for 2018? This histology is on the 2018 ICD-O-3 histology update list with a behavior code of /1. See discussion.

This will be a tough one for registrars to recognize as non-reportable since the terminology contains sarcoma, so we just want to double check.

Myxoinflammatory fibroblastic sarcoma (MIFS) (C49._), 8811/1, is not reportable for 2018 based on the 2018 ICD-O-3 New Codes, Behaviors, and Terms list. This is a new histology/behavior not previously listed in ICD-O-3. According to the WHO 4th Ed Tumors of Soft Tissue & Bone, this histology has been given a benign (/1) behavior; however, if the pathologist and/or physician state the tumor is malignant or metastatic, report the case and assign behavior code /3.

 2018
20180022

Reportability/Histology: Is a focal high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL/moderate to severe dysplasia/VIN II-III) in the vulva reportable for cases diagnosed in 2018? See discussion.

Since high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HGSIL) is reportable for the vulva in 2018 (per SINQ 20130185) but VIN II-III is not reportable, we need to clarify this reporting format seen in our area.

Report when stated to be high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion of the vulva. The 2018 SEER Manual says to assign 8077/2. HGSIL is a synonym for squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III for vulva and vagina only.

 2018
20180021

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Corpus uteri: What is the correct histology code for "Mesophrenic-like adenocarcinoma" of the corpus uteri?" See Discussion.

The article I read (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=28984674) makes the distinction between mesophrenic adenocarcinoma and mesophrenic-like adenocarcinoma. The authors propose the term mesonephric-like Mullerian adenocarcinoma. So would this be coded as Mullerian adenocarcinoma?

Assign code 9110/3, mesonephric adenocarcinoma. These tumors commonly arise in the cervical wall and more commonly involve the lower uterine segment than do other cervical adenocarcinomas.

 2018
20180019

Marital Status: Is Marital Status always a self-reported status? See Discussion.

The SEER Manual states that Marriage is self-reported for the instruction in code 2, but it does not indicate if all other marital statuses are self-reported.

Examples: How is Marital Status reported for the following situations?

1. Patient with multiple tumors in the database, for the first tumor marital status is reported as married (code 2), for the subsequent tumor, marital status is reported as single (code 1).

2. Patient self- reports as single, but also has children.

3. Patient states they are in common law marriage, but our state is not a common law marriage state.

Marital Status is self-reported because the information is recorded in the medical record based on information obtained from the patient. Use text fields to document relevant information.

Examples

1. Assign code 2 for the first tumor and assign code 1 for the subsequent tumor unless the available information indicates the patient is divorced at the time of the subsequent tumor diagnosis. Patient may self-report single after a divorce. Assign code 4 in that situation.

The code assigned for marital status reflects the patient's marital status at the time of diagnosis for the tumor being abstracted. It is possible that marital status may be different for each tumor if the patient has multiple tumors.

2. If marital status is stated to be single, assign code 1.

3. If marital status is stated to be common law marriage, assign code 2.

Common Law Marriage is defined as a couple living together for a period of time and declaring themselves as married to friends, family, and the community, having never gone through a formal ceremony or obtained a marriage license.

 2018
20180018

MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: How should histology be coded for the following 2017 cases (pituitary adenoma vs. prolactinoma)? See Discussion.

1. (2017) Pituitary mass resection with a path diagnosis of

Do we code as prolactinoma when the tumor is immunoreactive for prolactin or must there be a definitive statement of ?

2. (2017) Pituitary lesion on imaging, MD diagnosis of

Current (2007) MP/H rule H9 states when there are multiple histologies in the same branch in Chart 1, code the more specific histology. These histologies are NOT in Chart 1, but prolactinoma seems to be a more specific type of pituitary adenoma. The next rule, H10 states to code the numerically higher code, 8272/0 (pituitary adenoma)?

3. (2017) Imaging diagnosis of pituitary macroadenoma with clinical diagnosis by MD of macroprolactinoma.

Current rules indicate when there is no path specimen that physician reference to type of tumor has priority over imaging.

Will these answers/histologies change with the upcoming 2018 Solid Tumor rules?

Code each of these 2017 cases as prolactinoma (8271/0), the more specific histology.

If these cases were diagnosed in 2018, the answer would be the same: code as prolactinoma.

 2018
20180016

Primary site--Pancreas: Is the uncinate process of the pancreas coded to C259, C250, or C257?

Assign C250 to the uncinate process of the pancreas. The uncinate process is part of the head of the pancreas.

 2018
20180015

Histology--Ovary: What is the correct ICD-O-3 histology code for sertoliform endometrioid carcinoma of the ovary?

Assign 8380/3. Sertoliform endometrioid carcinoma is a variant of endometrioid carcinoma according to the WHO Classification of Tumors of Female Reproductive Organs, 4th edition. There is no specific ICD-O-3 code for this variant.

 2018