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: 05/06/2026 20:40 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20091082 Behavior--Breast: How is this field coded for a case in which the final diagnosis reports DCIS, but the CAP protocol or microscopic findings show microinvasion? See Discussion.

1. Path report for breast cancer has final diagnosis as 'DCIS' but the CAP protocol in the body of the report says 'microinvasion seen, T1mic.'

2. Path report says 'DCIS' in the final diagnosis and microinvasion is identified in the microscopic portion of the report, but it is not in CAP protocol format and not stated in the final diagnosis.

Code both scenarios /3 [malignant (invasive)]. Information regarding behavior is not limited to the final diagnosis or the CAP protocol. See page 84 in the 2007 SEER manual:

Code the behavior as malignant /3 if any portion of the primary tumor is invasive no matter how limited; i.e. microinvasion.

 2009
20091115 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries - - Melanoma: How many primaries are reported when a patient presents with a malignant melanoma (NOS) and a separate lentigo maligna, both on right chest? See Discussion.

MP/H rule M5 states that melanomas with ICD-O-3 histology codes that are different at the third number are multiple primaries. However, the 2007 MP/H fundamentals Webcast session on melanoma rules states that this is not two histologic types. Lentigo maligna is a growth pattern, not a histologic type. Will clarification be included in the next MP/H rules revision?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, two primaries are to be reported for this case. Rule M5 applies because there is a difference in the histology codes at the third digit.

Clarifications regarding histologic types of melanoma will be added to the rules when they are revised.

2009
20091114 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: Would a left chest wall mass excision stated to be ductal carcinoma consistent with a breast primary and, "compatible with either local recurrence or potentially a metastasis" be a new primary per the MP/H rules? See Discussion. Patient underwent mastectomy in 1986 for infiltrating ductal carcinoma of left breast. Excision of left chest wall mass in March 2009 showed ductal carcinoma consistent with breast primary. The pathology report COMMENT stated it would be compatible with either local recurrence or a metastasis. The patient's primary breast carcinoma material is not available for direct comparison and the MP/H rules instruct us to ignore metastasis. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the MP/H rules do not apply to metastasis. If there is no further information available for this case, the MP/H rules do not apply to the 2009 diagnosis. 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
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
20091077 CS Site Specific Factor--Head & Neck: Can SSF 1-6 be coded using clinical information only, or does the source of information for lymph nodes need to be pathological?

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.CS Site Specific Factors 1 through 6 for head and neck sites may be coded using either clinical or pathologic information.

 2009
20091095 CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: Please clarify how SEER registries should use code 040 for Site-Specific Factor 3 on prostate cases. See Discussion. The 6/11/09 NAACCR Webinar on prostate cancer pointed out that SSF 3 code 040 refers the registrar to Note 4, which states "when the apical, distal urethral, bladder base, or bladder neck margins are involved and there is no extracapsular extension, use code 040." The webinar went on to say that code 040 ONLY applies to these specific margins, and that if other margins are involved (for example, the 'right lateral margin'), we should not use code 040. Is this consistent with SEER's interpretation of Note 4? Are we to ignore involvement of margins other than those specified in Note 4, and consequently code SSF 3 within the 000-032 range? Would this also apply to code 048 (extracapsular extension and margins involved)?

Yes, SEER agrees. Code SSF3, code 040 per page C-740 of 2007 SEER manual exactly as stated in Note 4. According to the Inquiry and Response System of the CoC, Note 4 lists specific margins that were once thought to have a prognostic impact. Code 040 in SSF3 should be used only when those margins are involved.

Note 4 pertains to code 040, not to code 048.

2009
20091059 CS Tumor Size--Breast: How is this field coded for DCIS that is present in scattered small foci over five of eight slides, and the greatest aggregate dimension measures 0.5 cm? See Discussion. Breast biopsy was prompted by abnormality seen on mammography. Would this be an example of when to code 996 (mammographic/xerographic diagnosis only, no size given; clinically not palpable) applies for the CS Tumor Size field?

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.Assign code 005 [0.5 cm] in this case. According to the General Instructions for CS tumor size, it is acceptable to code an aggregate size stated by the pathologist (see instruction 4.i).

 2009
20091120

MP/H Rules/Histology--Esophagus: Should the modifying expression "with areas of" be used to code histology? See Discussion.

Patient was found to have two tumors in the esophagus. The large tumor was diagnosed as adenocarcinoma with areas of neuroendocrine differentiation (small cell carcinoma). The smaller tumor was diagnosed as small cell carcinoma. If we accept the "areas of" to be part of the diagnosis, rule H16 indicates that histology for the large tumor would be coded 8045 (combined small cell and adenocarcinoma). If we ignore the "areas of," then histology for the large tumor would be coded to 8140 (adenocarcinoma). Either way, when counting primaries, rule M17 would be applied and the two tumors would be classified as separate primaries. However, it seems that the two tumors are probably the same disease process since they both show small cell carcinoma.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, do not use the modifying expression "with areas of" to determine a more specific histology per rule H13 in the MP/H rules.

 2009
20100008 Primary site--Bladder/Unknown & ill-defined sites: Should the coding of primary site be based on a molecular study when it is not verified by a clinical correlation? See Discussion.

Patient was seen in 2009 at Hospital A for bone pain and was found to have metastatic adenocarcinoma. A paraffin block specimen was sent to BioThernostics for THEROS CancerTYPE ID Molecular Cancer Classification Tests. The results came back with a 94% likelihood that the urinary bladder was the primary site. No scans were done on the abdomen or pelvis.

The patient was then sent to Hospital B for radiation to the bones and chemotherapy (Carboplatin and Taxol). The patient died within 6 months.

According to Hospital A, the primary site is bladder based on the molecular study report. Hospital B says this is an unknown primary. Which is correct? Do we take primary site from these tests, even when no clinical correlation is documented?

 Code primary site to bladder in this case. Code the known primary site when given the choice between a known primary site and an unknown primary site. 2010