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 10:14 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20110014 MP/H Rules/Histology--Corpus Uteri: Which MP/H rule applies in coding histology for a "high grade endometrioid adenocarcinoma with squamous differentiation (adenosquamous carcinoma)"? See Discussion. Is the pathology describing a specific histology, adenosquamous carcinoma [8560/3]? Or is this a combination/mixed histology code per rule H16? The Rule H16 instruction is to code a mixed histology code, 8323/3 [mixed cell adenocarcinoma] from Table 2 when two or more of the histologies are present (i.e., endometrioid and squamous in this case).

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Endometrioid adenocarcinoma with squamous differentiation is coded to 8570 [Adenocarcinoma with squamous metaplasia].

The following row needs to be added to Table 2 in order to be able to correctly use the MP/H rules to reach this conclusion.

Column 1:   Endometrioid adenocarcinoma

Column 2:   Squamous metaplasia

                    Squamous differentiation

Column 3:   Adenocarcinoma with squamous metaplasia

Column 4:   8570

The change will be made in the next revision of the rules.

2011
20110048 First course treatment--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is a "donor lymphocyte infusion" that is used in the treatment of CLL coded?

Donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) is coded as immunotherapy. The lymphocytes are donated by the same person who donated the original stem cell transplant. The lymphocyte infusion creates an immune response in which the T-cells are activated to attack the cancer cells.

See "Treatments" for CLL/SLL (9823/3)

 2011
20110111

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted for a patient with a history of right breast ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed in 2007 treated with bilateral mastectomies and a right chest wall mass excised in 2010 that revealed infiltrating ductal carcinoma? See Discussion.

The patient's right breast DCIS in 2007 was treated with bilateral mastectomies with negative lymph nodes and negative margins. The patient refused Tamoxifen at that time. In 2010 a right chest wall mass excision revealed infiltrating ductal carcinoma with negative axillary lymph nodes. The physician states this is a recurrence. Per MP/H rule M8 this invasive tumor must be abstracted as a new primary. Would the primary site of the 2010 tumor be coded to breast or chest wall given that the patient has a previous mastectomy?

This tumor in 2010 represents a recurrence; it is not a new primary. This second tumor would be coded as a new primary ONLY if the pathology report states that it originated in breast tissue that was still present on the chest wall. When there is no mention of breast tissue in a subsequent resection, the later occurring tumor is regional metastases to the chest wall (i.e., a recurrence of the original tumor).

In turn, this means that there was at least a focus of invasion present in the original tumor that was not identified by the pathologist. The behavior code on the original abstract must be changed from a /2 to a /3 and the stage must be changed from in situ to localized.

 2011
20110003 MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: Which MP/H rule applies and what is the histology code for a "large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (arising in adenocarcinoma)"? See Discussion.

Per the pathology report COMMENT section, "In addition to usual adenocarcinoma, a significant portion of this tumor displays features consistent with large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, an aggressive neoplasm which has a poorer prognosis than adenocarcinoma of comparable stage."

Is histology coded to 8574/3 [adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation] for this case?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Code histology to 8244/3 [composite carcinoid]. Rule H9 applies: Code 8244 [composite carcinoid] when the diagnosis is adenocarcinoma and carcinoid tumor. WHO describes these tumors as "mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma (MANEC)." They have components of adenocarcinoma mixed with high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC), which can be either small cell or large cell.

The next version of the MP/H rules for colon will make this clear by adding a note regarding this issue to Rule H9.

2011
20110102

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: For cases diagnosed 2010 and later, are idiopathic thrombocytopenia and autoimmune thrombocytopenia reportable?

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

Idiopathic and autoimmune types of thrombocytopenia are not reportable. Thrombocytopenia and thrombocythemia are not synonyms. Cytopenia and cythemia have different definitions. See Appendix F: Non-Reportable List for Hematopoietic Diseases.

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.

 2011
20110126 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be accessioned, and what rule applies, when the patient has a history of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma diagnosed in 2003, a follicular lymphoma diagnosed in 2009, and another diagnosis of follicular lymphoma in 2010? Is the application of the multiple primary rules effected if it is unknown whether the patient was ever disease free? See Discussion.

Patient has a history of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma involving multiple lymph node regions (site C778) with bone marrow involvement diagnosed in 2003 and a history of follicular lymphoma confined to the thyroid and neck lymph nodes diagnosed in 2009. In 2010 the patient was diagnosed with follicular lymphoma in the inguinal and abdominal lymph nodes.

The 2003 diagnosis of DLBCL and the 2009 diagnosis of follicular lymphoma are the same primary according to the 2009 rules, the Single Versus Subsequent Primaries Table.

What rule is used to determine whether the 2010 diagnosis of follicular lymphoma represents a new primary? Which histologies are compared using the rules: the 2010 follicular lymphoma diagnosis to the 2009 follicular diagnosis or the 2010 follicular lymphoma diagnosis to the 2003 DLBCL diagnosis?

This case should be accessioned as one primary.

Reportability is determined by the year of diagnosis. The original DLBCL was diagnosed in 2003 and the follicular lymphoma in 2009. The pre-2010 rules are used for both cases. Per the Single Versus Subsequent Primaries Table, these are the same primary. It is reported with the histology 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma]

Do not compare the DLBCL diagnosed in 2003 and the follicular lymphoma diagnosed in 2010 because the determination of the number of primaries for the two specific histologic types was done (as it should have been) using the rules in effect in 2009 when the follicular lymphoma was first diagnosed. The determination of a single or multiple primaries is made the first time the patient presents with the two different diseases; it is not changed when the same disease process reappears after 2010.

2011
20110028 MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: How many primaries and what histology(ies) are coded when the pathology report shows a, 1.9 cm Hurthle cell carcinoma, probable follicular variant of papillary carcinoma, with Hurthle cell features and a 2 mm focus of follicular variant, papillary carcinoma? See Discussion.

Right lobectomy pathology report final diagnosis states: 1.9 cm Hurthle cell carcinoma (see comment). Comment: histologic diagnosis Hurthle cell carcinoma, probable follicular variant of papillary carcinoma with Hurthle cell features. Subsequent left lobectomy one week later showed a 2 mm microscopic focus of follicular variant of papillary carcinoma, encapsulated.

None of the rules seems to fit this scenario. The number of primaries reported for this case depends on the histology coded for each tumor. Does Rule M6 (Follicular and papillary tumors in the thyroid within 60 days of diagnosis are a single primary.) or M17 (Tumors with ICD-O-3 histology codes that are at the first (xxx), second (xxx) or third (xxx) number are multiple primaries.) apply? Does the case represent a single primary because both are papillary/follicular tumors or two primaries because one is Hurthle cell carcinoma, and one is papillary/follicular carcinoma (different histology at second digit)?

To code the histology for the larger tumor in the right lobe, which rule do we apply? Rule H11 (single histology of Hurthle cell carcinoma [8290] per path final diagnosis), H15 (tumor has both follicular and papillary carcinoma [8340], per path comment), or H17 (numerically higher code for 8340 because there is both Hurthle cell and papillary/follicular carcinoma)?

Use the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual for cases diagnosed 2007 or later to determine the number of primaries. This is a single primary.

The Hurthle cell carcinoma is a synonym for follicular carcinoma according to the WHO. See page 67 of the 2004 WHO Classification of Tumours of Endocrine Organs. The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a thyroid primary, use the Other Sites MP rules under one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) to determine the number of primaries because the thyroid does not have site specific rules.

Start with the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module from Rule M3 to Rule M18. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.

. Follicular and papillary tumors in the thyroid within 60 days of diagnosis are a single primary. The patient has a tumor in each lobe of the thyroid with the same histology. Abstract a single primary for this patient.

Determine the histology code. For a thyroid, use one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Other Sites Histo rules to determine histology because thyroid primaries do not have site specific rules.

Start with the SINGLE TUMOR: INVASIVE ONLY module, Rule H8. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module from Rule H8 to Rule H18. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.

. Code follicular and papillary carcinoma of the thyroid to papillary carcinoma, follicular variant (8340). Use the comment to code the histology for the right lobectomy. "Probable" is an acceptable ambiguous term to use for coding histology. (See the Ambiguous Terms Used to Code Histology section of the General Instructions in the MP/H manual.)

 2011
20110120 Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: How is this field coded for a BILATERAL nipple sparing mastectomy given that SINQ 20110094 indicates that a nipple sparing mastectomy should be coded to 30 [subcutaneous mastectomy] but there is no code for bilateral subcutaneous mastectomies? The Surgery of Primary Site field reflects the type of surgery performed on the primary site. In this case, a nipple sparing mastectomy should be coded to 30 [subcutaneous mastectomy]. If the details of the case indicate this is a single primary involving both breasts, code removal of involved contralateral breast under the data item Surgical Procedure/Other Site. 2011
20110040

Reportability--Melanoma: Is a pathology report with a final diagnosis stating only non-reportable terms, followed by a re-excision pathology report that indicates "no residual melanoma" reportable? See Discussion.

Is a case reportable if the final diagnosis on an initial pathology report states a non-reportable term (e.g., evolving melanoma, early/evolving melanoma or melanocytic nevus) and followed by a subsequent re-excision pathology report stating there is "No residual melanoma"? There is no mention in the clinical history on the subsequent pathology report that the diagnosis was thought to be melanoma following the first procedure. The first mention of the reportable term was in the final diagnosis of the subsequent pathology report that stated "no residual melanoma."

No. This case is not reportable based on the information provided. "No residual melanoma" is not diagnostic of a reportable neoplasm.

We recommend that you try to obtain more information from the clinician/pathologist for this case due to the poor documentation. Check for any additional resection performed.

 2011
20110131 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Does a change in the 2008 diagnosis from refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB I) to a subsequent diagnosis of RAEB II in 2011 need to be reported to the state if the Hematopoietic Database indicates these diagnoses represent the same primary?

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

RAEB I and RAEB II [9983/3] have the same histology code per the Heme DB. They are synonyms. Per Rule M2 one abstracts a single primary when there is a single histology. There is no change to report to the state regarding histology.

The I and II designators indicate the number of blasts in the bone marrow. In RAEB, the number of blasts measures the severity of the disease and is also a predictor of the chance of a genetic transformation to AML.

In this case, the patient's disease has progressed to a more severe phase - similar to a solid tumor progressing from Stage II to Stage III.

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.

2011