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: 09/14/2025 09:01 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20100024

Histology: How is this field coded for a perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm (PEComa) of uncertain malignant potential that is malignant based on the presence of metastases? See Discussion.

In 11/2006 the patient had surgery for a 6cm mass in the RUQ arising in the falciform ligament. The pathologic final diagnosis was: Perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm (PEComa) of uncertain malignant potential. In 10/2009 a liver biopsy showed metastatic perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm.

Assign histology code 8005/3 [malignant clear cell tumor]. According to our expert pathology consultant, this is the best histology code available at this time for the occasional tumor which is designated as malignant. The appearance of metastatic disease clearly defines this case as malignant.

 2010
20100065

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is "myeloproliferative syndrome, NOS" synonymous with "myeloproliferative syndrome" and "myeloproliferative disease" and, therefore, reportable under the new hematopoietic rules?

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

Myeloproliferative syndrome and the myeloproliferative diseases were used in the past to describe myeloproliferative neoplasms. For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, although the term "myeloproliferative syndrome" is not currently used to describe this disease, the synonyms "myeloproliferative syndrome" and "myeloproliferative disease" were added to the database for myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassified [9975/3].

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
20100042

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Given that there appears to be many differences in the reportability of these case types pre- and post-2010 (e.g., [refractory] thrombocytopenia), is there a list available that gives the reportability dates for these diseases? See Discussion.

For cases diagnosed prior to 2010 "thrombocytopenia" was not reportable. According to the Heme Database, the term "refractory thrombocytopenia" is now reportable for cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later. It would be helpful to have a list of diagnosis date requirements for the different hematopoietic diseases.

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

Thrombocytopenia (NOS) is not reportable per Appendix F. However, the term "refractory thrombocytopenia" [9992/3] is reportable for cases diagnosed 2010 or later.

There has been no change in the reportability for thrombocytopenia. The hematopoietic "help" system lists all of the synonyms, variants, and abbreviations for diseases.

See the Hematopoietic & Lymphoid Neoplasm Coding Manual for changes in reportability associated with these cases.

 

  • Appendices D1a and D1b provide all of the new histology terms and codes.

  • Appendix D2 lists the newly reportable conditions.

    • Terms and codes in Appendix D are effective 01/01/10 and later. Refractory thrombocytopenia is included in D1a and D1b. The notes for D1a and D1b provide explanation and reiterate the dates these terms are effective.

    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
    		20100061 MP/H Rules/Histology: The 2010 SEER Manual has omitted some useful information in the Histologic Type ICD-O-3 section, specifically the statement of "Do not revise or update the histology code based on subsequent recurrence(s)". Will this statement be added to the revisions of the MPH rules? See Discussion. Example: A 2005 diagnosis of left breast lobular carcinoma [8520/3], followed by a 2009 diagnosis of left breast ductal carcinoma [8500/3]. Rule M10 states this is a single primary, but there is no information in the Histology rules (Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary) that the original histology should be retained, thus a person could potentially use these rules to change the original histology to 8522/3 [duct and lobular carcinoma] per rule H28. We will reinstate the instruction not to change the histology code based on recurrence in future versions of the histology coding instructions. However, this instruction may not be applicable to all anatomic sites. It will be reinstated on a site-by-site basis. You may also refer to the instructions on Page 7 of the 2010 SEER Manual under the heading "Changing Information on the Abstract." 2010
    		20100062 MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How is histology coded when there is a lung biopsy compatible with non-small cell carcinoma and regional lymph node biopsies compatible with adenocarcinoma? See Discussion. Which histology has priority when the pathology specimens reveal different histologies in the primary site and the regional lymph node? Do we assume the lung biopsy is the most representative tumor specimen because it is from the primary site and code to 8046 [non-small cell carcinoma] or should we use rule H5 and code to 8140 [adenocarcinoma, NOS] because adenocarcinoma is a more specific histology than non-small cell carcinoma? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code histology based on a pathology report from the primary site whenever possible. Code histology to 8046/3 [non-small cell carcinoma] for the case example provided. 2010
    		20100035 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Colon: How many primaries are accessioned for a patient with two colon carcinomas in different segments of colon when there is no documentation that either tumor arose in a polyp, there is no statement indicating the presence of adenomatous polyposis coli and the resected pathology specimen indicates the presence of over 200 polyps? See Discussion.

    The first MP/H rule that applies for this case is M4 [tumors in different segments of the colon]. Following rule M4, the case would be counted as two primaries and the histology would be coded per Rule H11. As these are multiple primaries, Rule H17 [Code 8220 (adenocarcinoma in adenomatous polyposis coli) when there are > 100 polyps identified in the specimen] would never apply, because H17 applies to multiple tumors abstracted as a single primary. However, Rule H17 seems to fit this case. Should Rule M3 be expanded to include a statement about > 100 polyps so these cases are not accessioned as multiple primaries?

    Example: Total colectomy: 1) Distal tumor: - ulcerating moderately differentiated colonic adenocarcinoma, 3.2 cm in greatest dimension. Tumor invades through the muscularis propria into the subserosa (pt3). 2) Proximal tumor: exophytic moderately differentiated colonic adenocarcinoma, 2.9 cm in greatest dimension. Tumor invades submucosa (pt1). Multiple tubular adenomas present throughout the colon, approximate count greater than 200.

    		For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule M3 for this case and abstract as a single primary. The case information makes it clear that this is adenomatous polyposis coli. Clarification will be added to rule M3 in the next revision of the rules. 2010
    		20100007 MP/H Rules/Histology--Melanoma: Regarding SINQ #20081044, when would you apply Rule H6 rather than Rule H5 for a cutaneous malignant melanoma given that you normally always have a specific cell type mentioned? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule H6 is used when you do not have a specific cell type other than regressing melanoma, or malignant melanoma, regressing. If you have regressing melanoma with a specific cell type, apply rule H5. 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
    		20100036 Behavior--Lung: Can an in situ behavior code be used for a bronchioalveolar carcinoma of the lung when the pathologist appears to use the term bronchioalveolar to describe an in situ pattern of growth exhibited by an adenocarcinoma? Is the use of the term "pattern" in this situation indicative of in situ tumor? See Discussion.

    In ICD-O-3, bronchioloalveolar adenocarcinoma is described only by behavior code 3 (invasive). Would the behavior be coded as in situ for the following cases?

    Example 1: Left lower lobe, partial resection shows bronchioloalveolar carcinoma with focal areas of fibrosis (see comment). Comment: Although the possibility that these areas represent stromal invasion can not be excluded, we favor the interpretation that these areas do not represent true invasion. Synoptic summary: Minimal pathologic stage: Local Extent.

    Example 2: Lung tumor described as adenocarcinoma, predominantly bronchoalveolar pattern. For most sites, the term pattern is used only for in situ cancer and is not a specific term used for invasive tumors. Is the use of the term "pattern" in this situation indicative of in situ tumor?

    Code the behavior indicated in the pathology report. If the pathologist states the bronchioloalveolar carcinoma is in situ, apply the ICD-O-3 matrix rule and assign 8250/2. Otherwise, code 8250/3. Do not use the term "pattern" to infer in situ behavior.

    Code behavior /3 for both examples based on information provided.

    		2010
    		20100093

    MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries: Please clarify how rule M10 for Other Sites was developed and how a "recurrence" of the tumor after one year was determined to be a new primary? See Discussion.

    What is the expected outcome or result of rule M10? Specifically, for soft tissue sarcomas, why is a recurrence after one year a new primary instead of a recurrence?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Rule M10, tumors occurring more than one year apart are multiple primaries, was developed to differentiate a new primary from a recurrence. The rule was developed with the concurrence of the CoC site-specialty physicians and the SEER consulting pathologist. There was agreement between all of the CoC site teams and the consulting pathologist that statements of recurrence should not be relied upon to rule out a new primary. The time limits for each site were set based on information from peer-reviewed articles on tumors occurring in the same site and studies using molecular studies to confirm whether or not the tumors were histologically similar. Determination of the time limit for the "other sites" rules was probably the most difficult because so many sites are involved. However, the specialty-physicians felt that one year was an appropriate length of time to apply to these sites.

    		 2010