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: 07/09/2025 09:58 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20100029 MP/H Rules/Histology--Corpus uteri: How should histology be coded and how many primaries should be accessioned for an endometrial primary in which curettings showed malignant mixed mullerian tumor (carcinosarcoma) but hysterectomy specimen showed endometrioid adencarcinoma? See Discussion. The pathology report COMMENT for the hysterectomy specimen stated that the previous curettage was reviewed. The findings are compatible with malignant mixed mullerian tumor. No residual features of malignant mixed mullerian tumor are found in the current resection, which shows FIGO grade I adenocarcinoma in the wall of the uterus. The malignant mixed Mullerian tumor appears to have been removed with the curettage. There is no information available regarding the number of tumors in these specimens.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract a single primary. Rule M1 applies because there is no information on the number of tumors and there is no way to know whether the curettage sample was from a separate tumor or from the tumor in the hysterectomy specimen.

Apply rule H17 and code histology to 8980/3 for malignant mixed Mullerian tumor [Carcinosarcoma, NOS].

2010
20100058 Grade: Can the nuclear grade value be coded in the grade field for any site, or is it restricted to sites where it is specifically listed as an option in the coding manual, i.e., breast, kidney, urinary sites, etc.? There is no restriction on sites for which nuclear grade can be coded in the grade field. If both differentiation and nuclear grade are specified, differentiation takes priority. 2010
20100091 Reportability/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned and how is histology coded when a patient has a history of chronic myelogenous leukemia diagnosed in 1997 and a "blast crisis with myeloid markers" of this disease in 2010? See Discussion. The patient was initially diagnosed with CML in 1997. In February 2010 the disease went into a "blast crisis with myeloid markers." The patient received induction chemotherapy and the disease went back into a chronic phase. To capture the 2010 diagnosis of a blast crisis, is the histology code 9875/3 [chronic myelogenous leukemia, BCR/ABL1 positive] or 9861/3 [acute myeloid leukemia, NOS] used?

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

Per Rule M2, there is a single primary. Code histology to 9863/3 [CML, BCR-ABL1 status unknown, Blastic phase (BP)]. The blast phase is not recorded as a new primary because this disease does NOT change histologies.

Code 9875 [Chronic myelogenous leukemia, BCR-ABL1 positive] does not apply to the 2010 diagnosis because BCR/ABL status unknown. Code 9861/3 [Acute myeloid leukemia, NOS] also does not apply because the diagnosis was not acute.

It is not clear which chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) this patient has. Each CML is unique in that it has a blast phase without the histology itself changing. See the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB under any of the chronic myelogenous leukemias for a further explanation of this disease process.

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.

2010
20100050

Reportability--Colon: Would a carcinoid tumor, NOS, of the appendix with perineural or angiolymphatic invasion be reportable if there is no mention of malignancy in the pathology report?

Carcinoid, NOS, of the appendix diagnosed in 2015 or later is reportable.

For cases diagnosed prior to 2015

Carcinoids of the appendix are reportable when they meet any of the following conditions.

  • The pathologist designates the carcinoid as malignant

  • Regional lymph nodes are positive for MALIGNANT carcinoid (not reportable if lymph nodes are reported to be involved with benign carcinoid disease)

  • There are discontinuous metastatic implants or involvement

    • Note that the implants/involvement must be designated as malignant. Many benign tumors will spawn implants that are also benign. If implants are benign, this is not a reportable tumor.

    		2010
    		20100109 Reportability--Ovary: Does the ICD-O-3 term "stromal endometriosis" [8931/3] always imply a reportable malignant disease process if the pathologist also states there is "no evidence of carcinoma" in the same report? See Discussion.

    ROS Final Diagnosis: LSO: Ovary with an endometriotic cyst (1.2 cm) and stromal endometriosis with multifocal papillary syncytial eosinophilic, clear cell and tubal metaplasia, no evidence of carcinoma.

    COMMENT: There is extensive endometriosis involving the ovarian stroma and the ovarian surface. The ovarian stroma contains multiple cystic endometrial glands and surrounding endometrial type stroma with variable amounts of hemorrhage. There are non-cystic foci of endometriosis comprised of small, irregular glandular structures within the stroma. The lining of larger cyst/cysts is involved by a single layer of cuboidal to columnar cells with markedly eosinophilic cytoplasm in areas of serous (tubal) metaplasia and papillary projections suggestive of papillary syncytial metaplasia. Within these areas there is epithelial tufting and stratification, raising the consideration of proliferative/borderline change (which we cannot entirely exclude), however, given the background of endometriosis and morphologic similarity to papillary syncytial metaplasia in the endometrium, we favor that this is a non-neoplastic reactive change. There is no evidence of carcinoma.

    		 This case is not reportable. The pathologist states that there is no evidence of carcinoma. The ICD-O-3 matrix system applies, giving the pathologist the final say on behavior. 2010
    		20100037

    Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries should be accessioned for a patient diagnosed with essential thrombocythemia [9962/3] in 2002 who had a 2010 biopsy consistent with the fibrotic stage for a chronic myeloproliferative disorder that "suggests the patient is transforming to an acute myeloid leukemia"? See Discussion.

    Patient had a diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia [9962/3] in 2002 and was treated with Hydroxyurea. In 2010, the patient was admitted with severe bone pain and a diagnosis described as, "The overall features of the biopsy are consistent with a fibrotic stage of a chronic myeloproliferative disorder. The presence of up to 15% CD34+ immature cells seen in the biopsy suggests that the patient is transforming to an acute myeloid leukemia." In addition, cytogenetic studies and molecular testing for JAK2 were ordered. These findings confirmed a myeloproliferative disorder. JAK2 mutation was not detected. The patient died within 2 weeks. Is this a new primary?

    Was this patient diagnosed with AML (which requires 20% or more blasts and this is only 15%)? If this is a new primary, is the histology 9861/3 [AML, NOS] or 9895/3 [AML with myelodysplasia-related changes]? Was the second diagnosis of AML definitively diagnosed?

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

    This case is a single primary, essential thrombocythemia [9962/3] in 2002. The 2010 diagnosis is chronic myeloproliferative disorder [9960/3].

    According to Rule M15, the Multiple Primaries Calculator is to be used to first determine the number of primaries. Per the calculator, essential thrombocythemia and chronic myeloproliferative disorder are the same primary. (Acute myeloid leukemia is not used as the second histology because it is preceded by a non-reportable ambiguous term, "suggests." "Suggests" is not on the list of reportable ambiguous terms in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Coding Manual.

    In 2010, this patient was in a late stage of ET. When any of the specific MPN neoplasms such as ET are in the late stage of disease, the characteristics of the specific disease (ET) will no longer be detectable. Accordingly, for this patient the diagnostic testing was positive for MPN, unclassifiable. In this case, do not change the diagnosis from the more specific disease (ET) to the NOS (MPN, unclassifiable).

    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.

    		2010
    		20100034 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Esophagus: Should two separate nodules of adenocarcinoma with one at the GE junction [C160] and one arising in Barretts esophagus of the distal esophagus [C155] be accessioned as a single primary because these sites are now grouped together in the same stage grouping per the AJCC 7th Edition? See Discussion.

    Per notes included in CSv2, the cardia/EGJ, and the proximal 5cm of the fundus and body of the stomach [C16.0-C16.2] have been moved from the Stomach chapter and added to the Esophagus chapter effective with AJCC TNM 7th Edition. A new schema, EG Junction, was created in CSv2 to accommodate this change. Tumors arising at the EGJ, or arising in the stomach within 5 cm of the EGJ and crossing the EGJ are staged using the schema for EG Junction. MP/H Rule M11 states that tumors with ICD-O-3 topography codes that are different at the second (Cxxx) and/or third characters (Cxxx) are multiple primaries.

    In light of the fact that tumors of the GE junction are now included with tumors of the esophagus in AJCC 7th Edition, will the MP/H rules also be adjusted to reflect that change?

    		 For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use the multiple primary rules to determine the number of primaries. Use staging resources for staging. Abstract two primaries for the case example using Rule M11. 2010
    		20100064

    Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology to be coded for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and/or precursor B acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Pre-B ALL) for cases diagnosed 2010 and later? The Heme Database has two histology codes for this disease, both 9811/3 and 9836/3, which is the correct histology code?

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

    Code histology to 9811/3 [B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma, NOS].

    See the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB, when determining how to code histology for a case. It indicates the code 9811/3 is effective for cases diagnosed 2010 and forward. The 9836/3 is listed as obsolete and refers you to code 9811/3. Make sure to check for a specific subtype of B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma [9812/3 - 9818/3] before assigning the NOS code [9811/3].

    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.

    		2010
    		20100019 Histology--Ovary: How is histology coded for an ovarian mucinous neoplasm of low malignant potential (borderline mucinous cystadenoma) that shows extensive intraepithelial carcinoma and focal microinvasion? See Discussion. At surgery a 25 cm left ovarian mass is found adherent to the anterior abdominal wall. The final diagnosis per the pathology report is, "Mucinous neoplasm (26 cm) of low malignant potential (borderline mucinous cystadenoma) with extensive intraepithelial ca and focal microinvasion. Right ovary, fallopian tubes, uterus, omentum, biopsies of diaphragm, 28 para-aortic and pelvic LNS and peritoneal fluid are all negative for malignancy." Histology code 8470/3 [mucinous cystadenocarcinoma] is the best choice in this case. There is a mucinous cystadenoma [8470/0] with intraepithelial carcinoma and focal microinvasion. 8470/3 comes as close as possible to the description of the tumor. 2010
    		20100014 Reportability: Are there criteria other than a pathologist or clinician's statement that a registrar can use to determine reportability of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST)? See Discussion.

    Per SINQ 20091021 and 20021151, GIST cases are not reportable unless they are stated to be malignant. A pathologist or clinician must confirm the diagnosis of cancer. There are cases that are not stated to be malignant in the pathology report or confirmed as such by a clinician; however, these cases do have information that for other primary sites would typically be taken into consideration when determining reportability. The final diagnosis on the pathology report for all 16 cases is "GIST." The additional comment(s) for each of the 16 different cases is reported below. Are any of the following cases reportable?

    1) Pathology report indicates that the bulk of the tumor is submucosal. It extends through the muscularis propria and abuts the serosa.

    2) Pathology report states tumor extends to serosal surface of transverse colon, but not into muscularis propria. CD 117 and CD 34 are positive.

    3) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades through the gastric wall to the serosal surface.

    4) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades pericolic fat tissue.

    5) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate omental caking.

    6) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate hepatic metastases. Hepatic metastases are not biopsied.

    7) Tumor stated to be unresectable and extends into pancreas. Chemotherapy given.

    8) Pathology report states tumor is low to intermediate grade and involves serosal (visceral peritoneum).

    9) Tumor size is 17.5 cm. Pathology report states "malignant risk".

    10) Pathology report states tumor "into muscularis propria" or tumor "involves muscularis propria" or "infiltrates into muscularis propria".

    11) Pathology report states, "high malignant potential; omentum inv by tumor." It is not stated in path report or final diagnosis to be malignant GIST.

    12) Pathology report states that tumor arises from wall of small bowel and extends into thin serosal surface.

    13) Pathology report states minimal invasion of lamina propria; does not penetrate muscularis propria.

    14) Pathology report states, "high mitotic activity >10/50 HPF; high risk for aggressive behavior; moderate malignant potential."

    15) Pathology report states tumor size is >5 cm. Intermediate risk for aggressive behavior; CD117+ KIT exon 11+.

    16) Pathology report states "high risk of malignancy."

    		 For GIST to be reportable, the final diagnosis on the pathology report must definitively state that the GIST is malignant, or invasive, or in situ. Case 6 is the only exception. It would be reportable assuming the scan actually states "hepatic metastases." Based only on the information provided, none of the other examples are reportable. The type of extension and/or invasion mentioned in the other examples are not sufficient to confirm malignancy. Borderline neoplasms can extend and invade, but do not metastasize. Only malignant neoplasms metastasize. 2010