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: 09/18/2025 02:53 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20071132

Reportability--Brain and CNS: Does a neurofibroma actually arise in peripheral nerve roots like a schwannoma even if it is referred to as a "C6-T1 intradural spinal cord tumor" and is therefore not reportable?

Schwannomas and neurofibromas of the peripheral nerves are not reportable. Schwannomas of the nerve root or spinal dura are reportable.

2007
20071117 MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain: How many primaries are reported and what is the histology for a single brain tumor described as a low grade astrocytoma at the time of the initial partial resection and a low grade glioneuronal neoplasm at the time of the subsequent total resection? See Discussion. On 4/20/07 a partial resection of a brain tumor is interpreted as low grade astrocytoma. Patient has a gross total resection on 8/13/07 with this diagnosis: low grade glioneuronal neoplasm (see comment). Comment: This case has been reviewed at ---. Dr. agrees with our interpretation (low grade glioneuronal neoplasm, possibly a dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumor).

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is a single primary. A single tumor is always a single primary.

Assign histology code 9400/3 [Astrocytoma, low grade]. This diagnosis was not revised or amended based on the later surgery. It is possible that the malignant component was entirely removed during the first surgery.

 2007
20071097 Multiplicity Counter--Thyroid: How is multiplicity counter to be coded for a thyroid cancer presenting as multiple foci? See Discussion. Thyroidectomy showed papillary thyroid carcinoma. Path diagnosis: tumor focality: multifocal. Path described 3 foci of tumor on each side. The main tumor mass in right thyroid was 1.5 cm. Smaller foci of tumor ranged in size from .1 cm to 1.0 cm. Per guidelines, "we still don't count foci as tumors for the purpose of these rules, even if there is more than one." The 1 cm tumor was probably macroscopic in size. Do we count it in the multiplicity counter? Do we count only the 1.5 cm main tumor mass?

If the number of tumors is known, code the number in Multiplicity Counter. If foci are measured, include them in the multiplicity counter. If the only information available is "multiple foci" assign code 99.

For the case above, code 06 in the multiplicity counter (3 tumors on each side).

 2007
20071049 MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: If a tubulovillous (TV) adenoma is in situ and other polyp(s) have an invasive component, does the in situ TV adenoma still have priority and should rule H18 be applied?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, always give precedence to coding the invasive. Rule H18 applies UNLESS the adenocarcinoma in the TV is in situ and the others are invasive. In this case, code the histology of the invasive adenocarcinoma.

This clarification will be added when the MP/H manual is revised.

 2007
20071029 CS Lymph Nodes--Kidney, renal pelvis: Under what circumstances would code 80 [Lymph nodes, NOS] be used to document the presence of positive lymph nodes? See Discussion. The CS Schema for Kidney (Renal Parenchyma) states to use code 70 for Regional Lymph Nodes, NOS. The schema for for Renal Pelvis states to use code 50 for Regional Lymph Nodes, NOS. Both schemas have a Code 80, for Lymph Nodes, NOS that maps to N1 in both schemas.

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.Code 80 can be used for positive lymph nodes when you are unable to determine if they are regional or distant. CS Lymph Nodes code 80 is provided for this situation in accordance with the downstaging rule.

Code 80 should be used very infrequently and only when there is no indication whether the involved lymph nodes are regional or distant.

 2007
20071070 CS Tumor Size--Melanoma: How is this field coded when a smaller invasive and a larger in situ melanoma are reported as a single primary? See Discussion.

Patient has a 1.2 cm lesion right upper arm with a diagnosis of melanoma in situ. A second lesion on right wrist, 0.5 cm mole, has a diagnosis malignant melanoma, Breslow's 0.78, Clark's level III.

According to the 2007 MP/H rules, this is a single primary. Because the larger lesion is completely in situ, do you ignore it altogether and go with the smaller, invasive lesion? SEER Program Manual 2007, page 127, rule 4.l, states that when two lesions are reported as a single primary, code the size of the larger lesion, which in this case would be the in situ.

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.Code CS Tumor Size as 005 (0.5 cm). Code CS Tumor Size based on the invasive lesion.

Use the data items "Multiplicity Counter" and "Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary" to document that there are two tumors present, in situ and invasive.

 2007
20071038 MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is it generally correct that the code for PNET [9473/3] should be used to code tumors arising in the brain and spinal cord, and the code for pPNET [9364/3] should be used to code tumors arising in the bone and soft tissue? See Discussion.

The terms and definitions for "Brain" in the 2007 MP/H rules distinguish between pPNET and PNET. Is it correct even when the diagnostic terminology alone would lead to other coding, such as "PNET" used to diagnose a soft tissue mass in the chest and "neuroectodermal tumor" used to diagnose a brain mass?

Should additional rules be added to both "Brain" and "Other Sites" to enforce this distinction?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Yes. Assign code 9473/3 for tumors arising in the brain and spinal cord and assign code 9364/3 for tumors arising in the bone and soft tissue.

Clarification and reinforcement of this distinction will be added to the "Other sites" terms and definitions with the first revision to the MP/H rules.

 2007
20071012 Reportability--Melanoma: Is a skin excision final diagnosis of "melanocytic tumor with uncertain malignant potential" reportable if the path COMMENT states the initial shave biopsy diagnosis was "melanocytic tumor with uncertain malignant potential [minimal deviation melanoma]"? See Discussion.

SKIN, RIGHT FOOT, EXCISION: CHRONIC SCARIFICATION WITH RESIDUAL ATYPICAL MELANOCYTES IN THE DERMIS IDENTIFIED, BUT COMPLETELY EXCISED.

Comment: The prior outside biopsy report indicates that the lesion was a melanocytic tumor of uncertain malignant potential (minimal deviation melanoma) measuring at least 2.5 mm in depth. There was apparently no in situ component. Special stains performed here are similar, with positive reactivity for Melan A and S-100. The cells are atypical, but there are reactive changes, making it impossible to accurately assess the true nature of the lesion in this biopsy. If this is a minimal deviation melanoma, it would be classified as a T3 (T3a since there is no description in the outside report of ulceration) lesion. The atypical melanocytes extend to a depth of 1.1 mm in this 2 mm deep biopsy, but are completely excised, both at the deep margin and at all of the peripheral margins (closest margin is superior, with clearance of 7 mm).

PATH FROM INITIAL BIOPSY: Diagnosis: Rt dorsal foot, shave biopsy: Melanocytic tumor of uncertain malignant potential (see comment). Tumor depth at least 2.5mm Deep margin involved. Comment: As a primary lesion, I would favor that this represents a melanocytic tumor with indeterminate biologic potential also known as minimal deviation melanoma. The lesion does extend to the deep margin and wider excision is recommended.

 This case is not reportable. Based on the information provided, there is no definitive diagnosis of malignancy. 2007
20071044

Date of Conclusive Terminology: Is there an applicable timeframe when coding this field?

There is no strict timeframe for Date of Conclusive Terminology. The diagnosis using conclusive terminology could be made any time following the diagnostic work-up.

The date of conclusive terminology is related to code 2 [ambiguous term followed by conclusive term] in the data item "Ambiguous terminology." Assign code 2 when a conclusive diagnosis is made 60 days or more after a diagnosis using ambiguous terminology. Record the date of the conclusive diagnosis in "Date of Conclusive Terminology."

 2007
20071045 Ambiguous Terminology: How is this field to be coded when there is a "conclusive term" exactly 60 days following the initial diagnosis? See Discussion. Is code 1 [Ambiguous terminology diagnosis only within 60 days of initial diagnosis] or code 2 [Ambiguous term followed by a conclusive term more than 60 days after the initial diagnosis] to be used for a case that had a conclusive diagnosis at 60 days from initial diagnosis? The instructions on page 97 do not match the code definitions on page 95.

The definition for code 2 should be "More than 60 days" after the date of diagnosis.

Code 1 is 60 days or less, code 2 is more than 60 days.

This will be clarified in the first revision to the MP/H manual.

 2007