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: 02/12/2026 05:40 AM

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
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
20091084 Primary site--Colon: How do you determine the correct subsite when there is conflicting information in different reports? Are there priority rules for coding subsite for sites other than Head and Neck? See Discussion. The path report for a hemicolectomy says, " Specimen: left colon..." and the microscopic says, "...received in formalin designated left colon..." The Operative procedure report says, "Postoperative diagnosis - splenic flexure tumor." The text of this report says, "Mobilizing the splenic flexure mass was incredibly difficult..." and then goes on to describe exactly how and where it was resected. The discharge summary says adenosquamous carcinoma of the splenic flexure. SINQ20051010 says to use the pathology report first, but this was written before the new MP/H rules.

Use the operative report information to code primary site in this case. It is more accurate.

The operative report is usually a better source of location information compared to the pathology report. The pathologist can only reiterate the location as it was reported to him/her.

The 2007 SEER manual states "Unless otherwise instructed, use all available information to code the site," page 69.

 2009
20091102 MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: How should histology be coded for a diagnosis of "papillary sclerosing carcinoma" with an additional description of the tumor being "nonencapsulated"? See Discussion. Pathology report reads, "Papillary sclerosing carcinoma." In one case, the results are in CAP protocol format and next to 'Encapsulation of tumor' it says 'No.' In the other case, it is not in CAP format, but the microscopic description says, 'encapsulation of tumor - no.' Is the correct code 8350? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code 8350 [Nonencapsulated sclerosing carcinoma] per MP/H Other Sites Rule H11. The definition for 8350 in the Morphology section of ICD-O-3 includes nonencapsulated as well as diffuse sclerosing papillary carcinoma. When the pathologist states 'No' for encapsulated, that means nonencapsulated. 2009
20091026 CS Extension--Extramedullary Plasmacytoma: Under what circumstance would CS extension code 80 be used in a case of extramedullary plasmacytoma?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010, 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 CS extension code 80 [Systemic disease] for extramedullary plasmacytoma involving more than one site. Use code 80 when extramedullary plasmacytoma is NOT single, solitary, unifocal, isolated, mono-ostotic or localized. Code 80 can also be used when the bone marrow is involved but the plasma cells are <10%.

Do not apply EOD instructions to CS.

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
20091106 Multiple Primaries--Urinary: How many primaries should be coded for an 8/9/07 invasive transitional cell carcinoma of right ureter; 7/9/08 non-invasive urothelial carcinoma of bladder; 11/18/08 non-invasive urothelial carcinoma of left ureter; 6/20/09 invasive urothelial carcinoma of left ureter? One primary. This is a good example of how the field effect occurs in the urinary system. From 2007 to 2008, Rule M8 says bladder and ureter tumors are not new primaries and would be documented as recurrences. Because other urinary sites are involved by 11/08 and by 06/09, do not make second primary of left ureter (Rule M4 does not apply). 2009
20091081 Reportability/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is an "inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor" reportable for Brain and CNS sites? See Discussion. Histology code 8825/1 (Inflammatory Myofibroblastic Tumor) is not listed in the ICD-0-3 Primary Brain and CNS Site/Histology listing for reportable Brain/CNS tumors.

If the inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor is primary in one of the sites specified below and diagnosed 1/1/2004 or later, it is reportable.

Reportable brain and CNS tumors are any benign and borderline primary intracranial and CNS tumors with a behavior code of /0 or /1 in ICD-O-3 diagnosed 1/1/2004 and later, of the following sites:

  • Cerebral meninges C700
  • Spinal meninges C701
  • Meninges, NOS C709
  • Cerebrum C710
  • Frontal lobe C711
  • Temporal lobe C712
  • Parietal lobe C713
  • Occipital lobe C714
  • Ventricle, NOS C715
  • Cerebellum, NOS C716
  • Brain stem C717
  • Overlapping lesion of brain C718
  • Brain, NOS C719
  • Spinal cord C720
  • Cauda equine C721
  • Olfactory nerve C722
  • Optic nerve C723
  • Acoustic nerve C724
  • Cranial nerve, NOS C725
  • Overlapping lesion of brain and central nervous system C728
  • Nervous system, NOS C729
  • Pituitary gland C751
  • Craniopharyngeal duct C752
  • Pineal gland C753

 2009
20091063 CS Lymph Nodes--Head and Neck: How is this field coded when a positive neck FNA is followed by a neck dissection that contains one of seventeen positive lymph nodes? See Discussion. The primary site is the right tongue. The patient underwent FNA of a right neck mass that was positive for squamous cell carcinoma. Subsequent right modified radical neck dissection showed one out of seventeen nodes positive for metastatic carcinoma. For head and neck primaries, the CS LN codes 10-19 represent a single positive ipsilateral regional node. Codes 20-29 represent multiple positive ipsilateral nodes.

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.If the neck dissection included the area of the positive FNA, count only the positive nodes from the dissection. Avoid double-counting a positive node for both an FNA and a dissection.

In the unlikely event that the dissection did not include the area of the positive FNA, add one positive node to the count from the dissection.

This instruction supersedes previous instructions.

 2009
20091104 MP/H Rules/Histology--Esophagus: How is histology coded for a biopsy of the esophagus with a pathologic diagnosis of "adenocarcinoma, intestinal type" when there is no evidence of a gastric tumor in scans or EDG? See Discussion. There is a rule for colon to disregard "intestinal type" and code to adenocarcinoma (8140) but no rule for esophagus. How should histology for this esophageal case be coded?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Follow MP/H Other Sites Rule H11 and code 8144/3 [Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type]. Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type, is called that because it resembles the normal pattern of adenocarcinoma seen in the large intestines. It is not an indication of the location of the adenocarcinoma. We find that it is not uncommon in the sinuses, stomach, lungs, cervix, and many other organs.

 2009
20091053

Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be reported when a lobular carcinoma with positive margins is followed 8 years later by a lobular carcinoma near the previous lumpectomy site? See Discussion.

Left breast invasive lobular ca diagnosed 3/00 and treated with a lumpectomy, but with multiple positive margins; she received no post operative radiation or other medical treatment (unknown why). 10/08 core biopsy of "an area of distortion" near the scar site is positive for invasive lobular ca. The radiologist states "compatible with recurrence at her previous lumpectomy site" on an x-ray report.

One thought is that this should not be a new primary because the patient was never disease free (multiple positive margins) and the patient received incomplete treatment. Or should this be a new primary because the tumors are diagnosed more that 5 years apart?

Abstract the 10/08 diagnosis as a new primary, per Breast rule M5. In spite of the positive margins and apparently incomplete treatment in 3/00, there is no mention of the presence of disease between 3/00 and 10/08 according to the information provided.

 2009