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: 04/03/2026 23:17 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20110016 Behavior--Brain and CNS: Can hemangioblastomas occurring in the CNS be coded as /3 (malignant) based on a radiologic or clinical diagnosis by the physician? See Discussion. Hemangioblastomas are borderline (/1) according to ICD-O. The standard matrix rule in ICD-O directs registrars to change the behavior code to malignant when a malignant (/3) behavior is stated by a physician for a morphology code that appears in ICD-O with a non-malignant behavior code. The "malignant" hemangioblastomas we see are not pathologically confirmed; they are radiological or clinical diagnoses confirmed when renal cell carcinoma is a disease process listed in the malignant differential diagnoses.

The behavior code for hemangioblastoma can be coded to /3 when a pathologist indicates that the behavior is malignant. The behavior code should be based on a pathologist's opinion. It is usually not possible for a radiologist or patient care physician to make this determination clinically.

The histologic appearance of hemangioblastoma may resemble metastatic renal cell carcinoma; therefore, one will often see renal cell carcinoma listed as a possible diagnosis. This does not indicate that the hemangioblastoma is malignant. Do not code the behavior as /3 based on a differential diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma.

2011
20110015 Primary site/Histology: Do the 4/1/09 changes in the ICD-O-3 Site/Type Validation table regarding the coding of primary site for intestinal type adenocarcinoma mean that the former valid site/histology combinations are now impossible and require review from a given diagnosis date forward? See Discussion.

Per the SEER Errata for ICD-O-3 Site/Type Validation List, April 1, 2009, adenocarcinoma, intestinal type, was removed as a valid site/histology combination for the following primary sites: C150-C155, C158-C159, C170-C173, C178-C179, C180-C189, C199, C209, C210-C212, C218.

  • Does this mean that these combinations cannot be used? If so, then why is an override allowed for these site/type combinations? Shouldn't these site/type combinations be added to the impossible site/type combinations table?

  • SINQ 20081085 states that "8144/3 will be removed from the valid site/histology list for large intestine, small intestine, and rectum." It appears from the Site/Type Validation table that a decision was made to also remove esophagus sites as a valid combination with histology code of 8144. Please explain the rationale.

  • Cases that were miscoded to 8144/3 will need to be identified for correction. What date of diagnosis should be the reference point used in making the necessary corrections related to this change? Do we only need to review cases diagnosed 1/1/2009 forward or should all cases be corrected regardless of date of diagnosis?

    • The site/type edit identifies unlikely combinations of primary site and histologic type.

  • Intestinal type adenocarcinoma occurs in the stomach. It would be rare in another primary site, but not impossible.

  • It was decided that all digestive organ sites, except stomach, would be removed from the list. That is why esophagus is not listed as a valid site.

  • The site/type edit is for all years. Cases for all years have to be reviewed for combinations of site and type that are no longer on the list. If it is documented in the medical record that the primary site and histology combination are valid, set the over-ride flag so that the case will not come up for review again.

    		• 2011
    		20110014 MP/H Rules/Histology--Corpus Uteri: Which MP/H rule applies in coding histology for a "high grade endometrioid adenocarcinoma with squamous differentiation (adenosquamous carcinoma)"? See Discussion. Is the pathology describing a specific histology, adenosquamous carcinoma [8560/3]? Or is this a combination/mixed histology code per rule H16? The Rule H16 instruction is to code a mixed histology code, 8323/3 [mixed cell adenocarcinoma] from Table 2 when two or more of the histologies are present (i.e., endometrioid and squamous in this case).

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    Endometrioid adenocarcinoma with squamous differentiation is coded to 8570 [Adenocarcinoma with squamous metaplasia].

    The following row needs to be added to Table 2 in order to be able to correctly use the MP/H rules to reach this conclusion.

    Column 1:   Endometrioid adenocarcinoma

    Column 2:   Squamous metaplasia

                        Squamous differentiation

    Column 3:   Adenocarcinoma with squamous metaplasia

    Column 4:   8570

    The change will be made in the next revision of the rules.

    		2011
    		20110013

    MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: Which MP/H rule applies in coding the histology described as a "malignant mixed germ cell tumor with the following features: Histologic type: embryonal carcinoma (97%) and yolk sac tumor (3%)"? See Discussion.

    Per MP/H rule H16, code the appropriate combination/mixed code (Table 2) when there are multiple specific histologies or when there is a non-specific histology with multiple specific histologies. The combination embryonal carcinoma and yolk sac tumor is not listed in Table 2, even though the pathology report indicates this is a mixed germ cell tumor.

    Should rule H17 be applied and the numerically higher histology code be used?

    As of 2016: Code histology to 9085/3 [mixed germ cell tumor]. Combine 9065 and 9085 for analysis purposes.                            

    		2011
    		20110012 Reportability--Sarcoma: Is "atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma" reportable? See Discussion.

    The final diagnosis for a soft tissue excision is, "atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma". The Comment section states, "Atypical lipomatous tumor/well differentiated liposarcoma has a significant risk for local recurrence, but no metastatic potential."

    Per the 2010 SEER Manual, page 3, example 4: The pathologist makes the final decision about the behavior for a particular case. In this case, the pathologist uses both a reportable and a non-reportable term in the final diagnosis and in the comment section of the pathology report. Does the pathologist's comment impact the behavior and reportability of this tumor?

    		 For cases diagnosed 1/1/2014 and later: Atypical lipomatous tumor (8850/1) is not reportable. If the pathologist uses the term "well-differentiated liposarcoma" (8851/3) report the case. Use of this terminology indicates a less favorable prognosis. 2011
    		20110011 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a 2010 diagnosis of "thrombocytopenia of unknown etiology" reportable? See Discussion.

    No exact match returned after entering the term "thrombocytopenia of unknown etiology" in the Heme DB. However, the program does indicate there are 17 results that could be displayed that show any of the 4 terms entered. Clicking on the search label indicates there are no matches either.

    The only result returned after entering "thrombocytopenia" into the search box is "refractory thrombocytopenia."

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

    "Thrombocytopenia of unknown etiology" is not reportable. Thrombocytopenia refers to a low platelet count which causes bleeding. Thrombocytopenia can be caused by viral infections, excessive alcohol usage, HIV, and other causes (including chemotherapy). If the diagnosis is not "refractory thrombocytopenia" the case is not reportable. Appendix F lists this term as non-reportable.

    If you do not see the term in the Heme DB under either the Name column or the Alternative Names section for the results returned, it is not reportable. The only reportable term that contains the word thrombocytopenia is refractory thrombocytopenia. Therefore, thrombocytopenia of unknown etiology is not reportable.

    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.

    		2011
    		20110010

    Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a recently diagnosed granulocytic sarcoma followed by a diagnosis of AML two primaries? See Discussion.

    6/10/10 Axillary lymph node biopsy was compatible with AML. The physician noted that the patient was diagnosed with granulocytic sarcoma [9930/3] in the axillary node.

    6/15/10 Bone marrow biopsy compatible with AML FAB M1 [9873/3].

    After induction, a second bone marrow biopsy on 6/30/10 shows persistent/refractory AML. The physician noted that the second biopsy is compatible with AML FAB M7 [9910/3].

    Is the granulocytic sarcoma a chronic form of the disease? If so, do we have one primary diagnosed 6/10/10 with primary site coded to C42.1 and histology coded to 9873/3? Does the second biopsy on 6/30/10 represent the same primary even though the persistent disease is now FAB M7?

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

    Granulocytic sarcoma does not transform into AML. Per the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB under the term "granulocytic sarcoma," it indicates that "Myeloid sarcoma (also known as granulocytic sarcoma) may occur de novo; it may precede or coincide with AML, or represent an acute blastic transformation of myelodysplastic syndromes." This means that when granulocytic/myeloid sarcoma is seen with AML, it represents a solid manifestation of the systemically involved AML. In other words, it is all the same disease process (coded to AML) if it occurs simultaneously (i.e., at the same time or within 21 days of on another).

    Apply Rule M3 to this case which states to abstract a single primary when a sarcoma is diagnosed simultaneously or after a leukemia of the same lineage. Code the primary site to C421 [bone marrow] with histology coded to 9873/3 [acute myeloid leukemia, M1]. The FAB category is an older classification that is seldom used. Changes from FAB 1 to FAB 7 do not constitute a new 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.

    		 2011
    		20110009 Diagnostic confirmation/Date of diagnosis--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are these fields coded for a 2/11/10 negative bone marrow biopsy with cytogenetic abnormalities if the physician makes a clinical diagnosis of refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia on 2/25/10? See Discussion.

    2/11/10 bone marrow biopsy revealed "mild trilineal dysplastic changes in conjunction with chronicity of cytopenias is worrisome for MDS." Cytogenetics are positive for 5q deletion. Clinicopathologic correlation required for final diagnosis. On 2/25/10 the physician confirms a diagnosis of refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia.

    Is the date of diagnosis 2/11/10 with diagnostic confirmation of 3 or 2/25/10 with diagnostic confirmation of 8?

    The date of diagnosis is 2/25/10 and diagnostic confirmation is coded to 8 [clinical diagnosis only].

    As the cytogenetics state, you need clinicopathologic correlation to get confirm a reportable diagnosis. There is no reportable diagnosis from the bone marrow biopsy. The cytogenetics were done (the pathologic part) and then the physician confirmed refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia [9985/3] (the clinical part). The diagnostic process and the determination of a reportable diagnosis were completed when the clinician made the statement that this is refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia.

    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.

    		2011
    		20110008 MP/H Rules/Histology--Vulva: How is histology coded for VIN III with focal invasion? See Discussion. Per SINQ 20000442, the histology for CIN III with microinvasion is coded to 8077 [squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III] per the matrix system rules, with a behavior code of /3 [malignant]. Coding the histology to 8077/3 per the matrix principle causes IF25_3 and MorphICDO3_P1 edits to fail. Flagging the first error resolves any reporting issue. How is the MorphICDO3_P1 edit resolved? Assign 8076/3 [squamous cell carcinoma, microinvasive] for VIN III with focal invasion. This applies to all terminologies listed under 8077/2. The SINQ question from 2000 will be retired. 2011
    		20110007 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Bladder: How many primaries are to be abstracted and how are the histologies coded when a bladder resection demonstrates tumor with invasive small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma [8041/3], high grade papillary urothelial carcinoma in situ [8130/2], adenocarcinoma in situ [8140/2], and multifocal flat urothelial carcinoma in situ? See Discussion.

    Are the areas of in situ tumor to be ignored or would MP/H Rule M9 apply?

    		Ignore the in situ histologies. This is a single primary. Code the histology to invasive small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma [8041/3]. 2011