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: 04/27/2026 07:57 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
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
20110029 DCO/Multiplicity Counter/Type of Multiple Tumors: How are these fields coded for an unknown primary reported as a DCO case? See Discussion.

Do DCO cases have default values for the Multiplicity Counter and Multiple Tumor Reported as One Primary fields? Should these fields be coded as 88 or 99?

In the data item pages for these fields, there is only a reference to see the NAACCR Death Clearance Manual. However, this manual does not provide an answer. There is guidance to use code 88 for unknown primaries but we noticed that SEER edits skip enforcing this requirement for DCO cases (see SEER IF205 and 206).

 For a DCO case reported as an unknown primary [C809], code Multiplicity Counter to 99 [Unknown if multiple tumors; not documented] and Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary to 99 [Unknown]. 2011
20110012 Reportability--Sarcoma: Is "atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma" reportable? See Discussion.

The final diagnosis for a soft tissue excision is, "atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma". The Comment section states, "Atypical lipomatous tumor/well differentiated liposarcoma has a significant risk for local recurrence, but no metastatic potential."

Per the 2010 SEER Manual, page 3, example 4: The pathologist makes the final decision about the behavior for a particular case. In this case, the pathologist uses both a reportable and a non-reportable term in the final diagnosis and in the comment section of the pathology report. Does the pathologist's comment impact the behavior and reportability of this tumor?

 For cases diagnosed 1/1/2014 and later: Atypical lipomatous tumor (8850/1) is not reportable. If the pathologist uses the term "well-differentiated liposarcoma" (8851/3) report the case. Use of this terminology indicates a less favorable prognosis. 2011
20110140 MP/H Rules/Behavior--Breast: How are behavior and histology coded when the pathology report final diagnosis is "ductal carcinoma in situ and lobular carcinoma in situ" if the microscopic examination section of the same pathology report states there are "foci suspicious for microinvasive carcinoma"? See Discussion. The pathology report microscopic examination states, "focally, between ducts involved by DCIS, there are minute tubular structures associated with stromal fibrosis and chronic inflammation. These foci are suspicious for microinvasive carcinoma."

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code one primary with histology and behavior coded to 8522/2 [intraductal carcinoma and lobular carcinoma in situ].

The steps used to arrive at this decision are as follows

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Breast Histology rules. The module you use depends on the behavior and number of tumors identified in the primary site. The information provided does not specify whether this was a single tumor with DCIS and LCIS or multiple tumors with DCIS and LCIS. In this case, the number of tumors does not change the histology code for this patient. For this example, assume this disease process was a single tumor.

Start at the SINGLE TUMOR: In Situ Carcinoma Only module. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order from Rule H1 to Rule H8. Stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing. Code the histology as 8522/2 (intraductal carcinoma and lobular carcinoma in situ) when there is a combination of in situ lobular (LCIS) [8520] and intraductal carcinoma (DCIS).

Do not code the behavior as invasive in this case. The pathologist indicated that these findings were "suspicious" but not definite in the microscopic examination. If the pathologist decided that this was truly an invasive tubular element, it would have been included in the final diagnosis.

2011
20110009 Diagnostic confirmation/Date of diagnosis--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are these fields coded for a 2/11/10 negative bone marrow biopsy with cytogenetic abnormalities if the physician makes a clinical diagnosis of refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia on 2/25/10? See Discussion.

2/11/10 bone marrow biopsy revealed "mild trilineal dysplastic changes in conjunction with chronicity of cytopenias is worrisome for MDS." Cytogenetics are positive for 5q deletion. Clinicopathologic correlation required for final diagnosis. On 2/25/10 the physician confirms a diagnosis of refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia.

Is the date of diagnosis 2/11/10 with diagnostic confirmation of 3 or 2/25/10 with diagnostic confirmation of 8?

The date of diagnosis is 2/25/10 and diagnostic confirmation is coded to 8 [clinical diagnosis only].

As the cytogenetics state, you need clinicopathologic correlation to get confirm a reportable diagnosis. There is no reportable diagnosis from the bone marrow biopsy. The cytogenetics were done (the pathologic part) and then the physician confirmed refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia [9985/3] (the clinical part). The diagnostic process and the determination of a reportable diagnosis were completed when the clinician made the statement that this is refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia.

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
20110007 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Bladder: How many primaries are to be abstracted and how are the histologies coded when a bladder resection demonstrates tumor with invasive small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma [8041/3], high grade papillary urothelial carcinoma in situ [8130/2], adenocarcinoma in situ [8140/2], and multifocal flat urothelial carcinoma in situ? See Discussion.

Are the areas of in situ tumor to be ignored or would MP/H Rule M9 apply?

Ignore the in situ histologies. This is a single primary. Code the histology to invasive small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma [8041/3]. 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
20110078 MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: What is the histology code for "high-grade urothelial carcinoma, plasmacytoid variant"? See Discussion. Per the MP/H Manual, Urinary Equivalent Terms & Definitions, Table 1, plasmacytoid is a specific type of Urothelial/Transitional Cell Tumor. What is the correct histology, and rule used, when a bladder resection pathology report states, "high-grade urothelial carcinoma, plasmacytoid variant"?

Code the histology to 8082/3 [urothelial carcinoma, plasmacytoid].

The Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual is the correct source for coding histology for cases diagnosed 2007 or later. Unfortunately, in this case there is no current rule that directs you appropriately to Table 1 from Rule H7 to find this histology combination. We need to add an example under Rule H7 that instructs you to "See Table 1" for an urothelial carcinoma diagnosis that mentions a more specific cell type (e.g., plasmacytoid). We will add a reference to Table 1 in Rule H7 in the updates to MP/H Rules.

2011
20110107 Primary site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are these fields coded for a precursor T lymphoblastic leukemia involving the bone marrow and peripheral blood (per pathology) with a clinically noted large mediastinal mass and cervical lymphadenopathy? See Discussion. The patient had a large mediastinal mass and cervical lymphadenopathy, however, no biopsy was performed of either area nor was there a specific statement indicating involvement. The bone marrow biopsy showed 100% cellular marrow with involvement by precursor T lymphoblastic leukemia. The peripheral blood also showed precursor T lymphoblastic leukemia. The discharge summary and office notes state the diagnosis as T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

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

Code the histology to 9837/3 [adult T cell leukemia/lymphoma] and the primary site to C778 [lymph nodes, multiple regions]. Per Rule PH8, code the primary site to the site of origin when lymph node(s) or lymph node region(s), tissue(s) or organs are involved. A statement of "mediastinal mass" and lymphadenopathy for lymphoma primaries is equivalent to lymph node involvement. To identify the more specific primary site, you need to move to Rule PH21 that indicates you are to code the primary site as multiple lymph node regions, NOS [C778] when multiple lymph node regions, as defined by ICD-O-3, are involved and it is not possible to identify the lymph node region where the lymphoma originated.

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
20110017

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are reported if a patient originally diagnosed with CLL is subsequently diagnosed several months later on a bone marrow biopsy with Richter's syndrome that transformed into a large cell lymphoma? See Discussion.

Per reviewed resources, the described condition is rare. Should the histology remain CLL or be changed to large cell lymphoma?

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

This case is accessioned as two primaries per Rule M10 which states to abstract multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm and there is a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis. The first primary is CLL [9823/3] and it is a chronic neoplasm. The second primary is diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) [9680/3] and it is an acute neoplasm.

Richter syndrome (RS) is a complication of B cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or hairy cell leukemia (HCL) in which the leukemia changes into DLBCL. There is also a less common variant in which the CLL changes into a Hodgkin lymphoma. Richter's transformation affects about 5% of CLL patients. Richter syndrome is listed under the Alternate Names section in the Heme DB for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3].

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.

 2011