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: 07/21/2025 06:19 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20110070 MP/H Rules/Histology--Endometrium: How is histology coded when clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] is stated to involve a "1.5 cm endometrial polyp"? See Discussion.

The CAP formatted pathology report histology field states, "Clear cell adenocarcinoma, NOS 98310/3)" and the tumor size comment field states, "Carcinoma involves a 1.5 cm endometrial polyp." Does rule H11 apply? Is the histology coded to clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] because this is one histologic type identified in the CAP formatted histology field? Or should rule H12 apply and the histology coded as clear cell adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp [8210/3]? Or should we code the higher histology per rule H17 apply because clear cell adenocarcinoma and adenocarcinoma in a polyp are two specific histologies?

For colon primaries, whether or not the tumor arose in a polyp is quite important. Is this also the case for primaries listed in the Other Sites category?

Code histology to 8310/3 [clear cell adenocarcinoma]. The Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual is the correct source for coding histology for cases diagnosed 2007 or later.

The following steps are used to determine the histology code:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For an endometrial primary, use the Other Sites Histo rules to determine the histology code because endometrium does not have site specific rules.

Go to the SINGLE TUMOR: INVASIVE ONLY module, which starts at Rule H8.

. Code clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] because only one histologic type is identified.

2011
20110042 MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: How is histology coded when the initial biopsies of retroperitoneal mass demonstrated non-seminomatous germ cell tumor, but after neoadjuvant chemotherapy the final diagnosis on the radical orchiectomy specimen demonstrated mature teratoma, NOS (not stated to be malignant)? See Discussion. A large retroperitoneal mass was found on CT scan. A biopsy demonstrated non-seminomatous germ cell tumor. The biopsy was done at an outside facility. Neither the CT scan nor biopsy pathology report is available for review. Following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the retroperitoneal mass decreased to 12 cm. Subsequently, the patient had a right radical orchiectomy. The final diagnosis per the pathology reports was a 3.5 cm mature teratoma (NOS, not stated to be "malignant") of right testicle. The patient then had resection of the retroperitoneal mass and biopsies. Pathology showed the "excision" specimen contained 6 benign lymph nodes and two of the "biopsy" specimens showed non-seminomatous germ cell neoplasm with IHC findings suggestive of a mix of embryonal carcinoma and a lesser component of yolk sac tumor.

This is a reportable case. Even though the pathology from the orchiectomy stated mature teratoma, NOS, the presence of lymph node metastases proves that this tumor is malignant. Code the histology as 9065/3 [germ cell tumor non-seminomatous].

The majority of germ cell tumors show the presence of multiple histologies. While the original tumor showed only mature teratoma, there were obviously yolk sac cells that were not detected on the sections taken from the primary tumor. Both teratoma and yolk sac are germ cell tumors. This explains why the pathologist gave you the diagnosis of germ cell tumor. The classification of "non-seminomatous" simply means that there was no seminomas present in the mixture of germ cell histologies.

2011
20110077 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be reported if different recurrence scores are found on the Oncotype Dx studies performed for multiple tumors in the same breast if the clinician states the patient has two primaries but the pathologist does not address the issue? See Discussion. A patient has two separate lesions in the same quadrant with the same histology. According to the MP/H rules this is a single primary. However, Oncotype Dx studies were performed on both tumors and the DX recurrence was different for each tumor. The medical oncologist states the patient has two primaries. The pathologist does not indicate the number of primaries.

This is a single primary. The only rules used to determine the number of primaries are the MP/H rules for cases diagnosed 2007 or later. Do not use other information such as Oncotype Dx to determine the number of primaries for a patient. Oncotype is used to determine whether the cancer is likely to recur AND whether the cancer would benefit from chemotherapy.

The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. Once in the manual, locate the Breast MP rules under one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text).

Start with the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M4. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module from Rule M4 to Rule M13. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.

The patient has two tumors in the same breast with the same histology. Abstract a single primary for this patient.

2011
20110013

MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: Which MP/H rule applies in coding the histology described as a "malignant mixed germ cell tumor with the following features: Histologic type: embryonal carcinoma (97%) and yolk sac tumor (3%)"? See Discussion.

Per MP/H rule H16, code the appropriate combination/mixed code (Table 2) when there are multiple specific histologies or when there is a non-specific histology with multiple specific histologies. The combination embryonal carcinoma and yolk sac tumor is not listed in Table 2, even though the pathology report indicates this is a mixed germ cell tumor.

Should rule H17 be applied and the numerically higher histology code be used?

As of 2016: Code histology to 9085/3 [mixed germ cell tumor]. Combine 9065 and 9085 for analysis purposes.                            

2011
20110051 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted when bilateral breasts are involved with MALT lymphoma and the bone marrow is negative?

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

Per Rule M2, this is a single primary because there is a single histology mentioned. The histology is coded to 9699/3 [MALT lymphoma]. Code the primary site to C509 [breast] per Rule PH24 which states to code the primary site to the organ when lymphoma is present only in an organ.

Unless your software has edits that prevent coding laterality for lymphomas, code the laterality as bilateral. Up to half of extranodal, extragastric MALT lymphomas occur in multiple sites, particularly in paired sites (breast is an example).

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
20110038

Reportability/Behavior: Is a "minimally invasive thymoma" a reportable malignancy if the pathology report does not specifically state it is malignant? See Discussion.

For example, are Types A, B1, B2 and B3 reportable if the pathology report does not state the tumor is a "Malignant Thymoma"?

For cases diagnosed prior to 2021

According to our expert pathologist consultant, code using the terms in the pathology report. Do not try to second guess the pathologist.

  1. Thymomas are /1 and not reportable unless the pathologist states "malignant". This includes A, AB, B1, B2, and B3. Any one of these types of tumors may exhibit invasion but do not code /3 based only on invasion.

  • Code thymoma as /3 if specifically designated "malignant" by the pathologist.

  • Thymic carcinoma and any of its subtypes are malignant, /3.

    		•  2011
    		20110090 MP/H Rules/Histology/Behavior--Ovary: How are these fields coded for a 20 cm borderline mucinous tumor with a 0.3 cm minor focus of intraepithelial carcinoma of the ovary that the pathologist stages as T1a?

    According to the MP/H rules, code histology to 8010/2 [intraepithelial carcinoma] for cases diagnosed 2007-2014. Borderline mucinous tumor is not reportable to SEER.

    The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

    Go to the Other Sites Histo rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual.

    Start at the SINGLE TUMOR: IN SITU ONLY module, rule H1. Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. The only reportable histology in this case is intraepithelial carcinoma [8010/2].

    		2011
    		20110055

    Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted for a bone marrow biopsy diagnosis of "acute myeloid leukemia (non-M3 type; favor FAB M1), probably arising in myelodysplastic syndrome;" and flow cytometry studies performed the same day were consistent with acute myeloid leukemia?

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

    Ambiguous terminology is NOT used to determine histology for hematopoietic or lymphoid neoplasms. Therefore, the comment that the AML is "probably" arising in myelodysplastic syndrome is not used to determine the histology code. The term "favor" is also an ambiguous term and cannot be used to code histology.

    This is a single histology per M2, abstract a single primary when there is a single histology. The histology is coded to 9861/3 [acute myeloid leukemia, NOS]

    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
    		20110116

    MP/H/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code for "heterologous biphasic sarcomatoid carcinoma of the lung with prominent rhabdomyoblastic and adenoca differentiation"?

    The expert pathologist recommends coding histology to 8980/3 [Carcinosarcoma] for this combination histology.

    Expert consultation: The designation "carcinosarcoma" is given when the pathology shows differentiation in both the sarcomatous (rhabdomyoblastic) and carcinomatous (adenoca) elements. This is emphasized in the path for this case with the term "biphasic." The term "heterologous" mean that the sarcomatous component is of a type not normal to lung. Rhabdomyoblastic means skeletal muscle differentiation. Because skeletal muscle is not normally found in lung it is heterologous. If it were smooth muscle, it would be homologous because smooth muscle is found in lung (as a part of the bronchi).

    		 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