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: 11/16/2025 07:21 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20091072 Histology--Brain and CNS: How is histology coded for a "rosette-forming glioneuronal tumor" of the fourth ventricle?

Assign histology code 9505/1 [Ganglioglioma, NOS].

Rosette-forming glioneuronal tumor of the 4th ventricle is a new WHO entity. There is no current ICD-O-3 code for this. The best code available at this time is 9505/1.

 2009
20091083 Grade/Cell indicator--Lymphoma: How is Grade/Cell indicator coded for anaplastic large cell lymphoma? See Discussion. The SPCM states cell indicator codes take precedence over grade/differentiation codes for lymphoma and leukemia cases.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Because there is no cell indicator information, code 9 [cell type not determined] in the grade/cell indicator field. Do not code grade for lymphoma. For lymphoma and leukemia this field is the cell indicator.

For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.

 2009
20091019 MP/H Rules/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: Can a diagnosis of multiple myeloma be made if a bone marrow biopsy is negative? See Discussion. Patient with large mass nasal cavity. Biopsy shows plasmacytoma. Fine needle aspiration of the acetabulum is consistent with multiple myeloma. Skeletal survey shows multiple lytic lesions. Bone marrow biopsy is negative for myeloma. In light of negative bone marrow biopsy can this case be coded as multiple myeloma?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code this case as multiple myeloma. The fine needle aspiration of the acetabulum is a biopsy of bone marrow. According to our pathologist consultant, the positive bone marrow biopsy (acetabulum) and the multiple lytic bone lesions confirm multiple myeloma. The negative bone marrow biopsy is likely due to an insufficient sample.

For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.

 2009
20091010 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What histology is coded when a final diagnosis on a lumpectomy specimen states "adenocarcinoma" but the regional lymph nodes show "poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma with signet ring differentiation"? See Discussion.

3/23 left breast mass bx: infiltrating lobular carcinoma.

6/22 left breast lumpectomy: infiltrating adenocarcinoma; sentinel lymph nodes with metastatic poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma with signet ring differentiation. Axillary resection with poorly differentiated metastasis in 8/9 nodes. The path micro states: tissue consists of sections of breast tissue having an infiltrating ca which in some areas infiltrates as small duct-like structures, and in other areas as small gland-like structures. In addition, there are foci in which the cells infiltrate in a single file fashion. In a few areas, cells having a signet ring appearance similar to those seen in the lymph nodes are encountered. In other areas, the signet ring appearance is not prominent. Areas of ductal or lobular ca in situ are not identified (the lymph node resection specimen shows 'signet ring appearance in some areas but no ductlike or tubular structures observed')

The comment on the lumpectomy path states: 'This is an unusual tumor in that it has histologic characteristics in varying areas, which would be consistent with infiltrating ductal carcinoma, infiltrating lobular carcinoma, tubular carcinoma or signet ring cell carcinoma. The metastatic material (8/9 total axillary lymph nodes) is most consistent with the poorly differentiated signet ring type portion of the tumor undergoing metastasis.'

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Code the histology 8140 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS] using Breast rule H14.

Code the histology from the final diagnosis on the pathology report of the most representative specimen (the lumpectomy in this case). Do not code histology from the microscopic description. Code the histology from the primary site whenever available, not the metastatic site.

Comments on pathology reports can be used to code histology. However, in this case the final diagnosis is more definitive than the comments. The comment provides several choices and none of these appear in the final diagnosis; an indication that the pathologist was not able to clearly identify a more specific type in this case.

 2009
20091100

MP/H Rules/Histology--Melanoma: How is histology coded for a "melanoma in situ, lentiginous type," arising in the skin of the lower leg? See Discussion.

In researching this, acral lentiginous melanoma is observed on the palms, soles and under the nails. To code to 8744, do we specifically have to see the word "acral" lentiginous melanoma?

For cases diagnosed 2007 to 2020

Assign 8742/2 [lentigo maligna] to "melanoma in situ, lentiginous type."

Acral lentiginous melanoma is not the same as melanoma, lentiginous type. "Acral lentiginous melanoma," 8744, should be used only if the report states acral lentiginous melanoma or malignant melanoma, acral lentiginous type.

Acral lentiginous melanoma most often occurs on the soles of the feet or the palms of the hands.

 2009
20091034 CS Extension--Ovary: How are the following terms coded when they are described in the medical record without any other qualifying information? Seeding, talcum powder appearance, salting, miliary, and studding.

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.Seeding, talcum powder appearance, salting and studding are synonymous with implants. When the size of implants is not stated, but operative report and scans state "seeding," "talcum powder appearance," "salting," and "studding" the CS extension code choice will depend on the location of the seeding, talcum powder appearance, salting, or studding.

The word "miliary" is not documented as a synonym for implants.

The term miliary does not affect the CS extension code choice according to the current CS instructions.

 2009
20091088 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded for a diagnosis of "metaplastic carcinoma with the sarcomatous component of high grade sarcoma with focal areas of osteoid formation"? See Discussion. Right breast simple mastectomy, path: 2.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 cm metaplastic carcinoma with; the sarcomatous component is high grade sarcoma with focal areas of osteoid formation. The epithelial component is predominantly grade 2 DCIS. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8575 [Metaplastic carcinoma, NOS]. Metaplastic carcinomas often include mixtures of epithelial carcinoma with sarcoma, for example. 2009
20091049 P/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung/Breast: Can we assume that a current tissue specimen is a recurrence of previous primary if a pathologist states that he has compared the current specimen with the slides from the prior tumor and concludes that the current tumor is "similar" to a previous tumor? See Discussion.

The MP/H rule general information section states that we do not accession a second primary unless a pathologist compares the current tumor to the original tumor and states that the current tumor is a recurrence of cancer from the previous primary. In our experience it is rare that a pathologist speaks so bluntly. They frequently hedge somewhat.

Are the following statements worded strongly enough for us to make the assumption that the current tumor is a recurrence of patient's previous cancer?

Example 1: Pathologist states: Patient's prior lung tumor reviewed. The tumor in the current case (left lower lobe) shows similarities to some areas of the patient's prior left lower lobe tumor.

Example 2: Pathologist states: The focus of ductal carcinoma in the mastectomy specimen does resemble the carcinoma in the previous partial mastectomy specimen. (Slides reviewed).

All pathologists do not use words in the same way. Therefore, we will not provide a list of specific words to accept or not to accept in order to determine recurrence. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, do not base your decision about recurrence on words such as "similar" or "resembles." If the pathologist believes two or more tumors are the same or believes one is a recurrence of another after comparison, accept it. When pathologists believe that two or more tumors are not the same or believe that one is not a recurrence of another, there is usually a strong statement indicating that opinion. 2009
20091108 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How do we apply the MP/H rules if a pathologist states a patient has multiple reportable primaries after he compares an October 2006 RLL lung specimen with a March 2009 RML lung specimen? See Discussion. Patient had a right lung lobectomy (RLL) in Oct. 2006 diagnosed as adenocarcinoma. In March of 2009, two nodules in the right upper lobe were identified. Following a RUL wedge resection, the pathology report indicated: Two foci of M.D. adenocarcinoma with mixed mucinous and micropapillary and solid patterns. COMMENT: The present tumor is compared to the previous adenocarcinoma reviewed in 2006. Although there is some overlap in their appearance, the present tumor shows a much greater component of mucinous adenocarcinoma. Because there is some difference in the appearance, and the nodule is located in a separate lobe, this will be dictated as a separate lung primary.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is two primaries.

MPH General Instructions tell us a pathologist may decide when there is recurrence when comparing the current tumor to a previous specimen. In this case, the pathologist did the comparison and documented that the second tumor is NOT a recurrence but a new primary.

Histologies described by the terms "pattern" and "component" do not indicate a more specific type when applying the histology rules. The histology for the 2009 diagnosis is adenocarcinoma [8140/3]. Rule H3 applies.

2009
20091092

MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How should Diagnosis Date, Diagnostic Confirmation and Histology be coded for the LEFT lung mass in the following case?

PET shows a 3 cm mass in the left lung and a 2.9 cm mass in the right lung. No reportable terminology in PET. The right mass is biopsied and shows adenocarcinoma. The left mass is not biopsied. Based on rule M6, this should be reported as two primaries. No additional information in medical record. Patient expired.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

For date of diagnosis, use the date of the PET scan for both primaries. For the left tumor, assign diagnostic confirmation code 8 [Clinical diagnosis only] and assign histology code 8000/3 [malignant neoplasm].

The left lung mass is reported as a separate primary because there is one tumor in each lung. According to Rule M6, when there is one tumor in the left lung and one tumor in the right lung, each tumor is a separate primary. Tumor and mass are equivalent terms for purposes of the multiple primary rules.

 2009