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: 11/12/2025 14:32 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20120088

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Head & Neck: How many primaries are accessioned and what rule applies if a patient has an extensive tumor in the left ethmoid sinus and a separate tumor in the right maxillary sinus? See Discussion.

MRI and CT Neck Impression: Extensive tumor mass which likely originated within the left ethmoid sinus and extends intracranially via the cribriform plate into the anterior cranial fossa. There is involvement of the left orbit and extension into the superior aspect of the left maxillary sinuses as well as the nose. Second enhancing lesion within the right maxillary sinus measures almost 2 cm. The second mass within the floor of the right maxillary sinus, with similar imaging characteristics, is consistent with malignant involvement.

The patient has an extensive ethmoid sinus tumor, biopsy showed squamous cell carcinoma. The ethmoid sinus is not a paired organ. The patient also has a small maxillary tumor with no histologic confirmation, Hem/Oncology chart notes state the right maxillary sinus mass is carcinoma. The maxillary sinus is a paired organ.

Per the AJCC Manual (AJCC Manual for Staging, 7th edition, page 70), both the ethmoid and maxillary sinuses are further identified by their laterality (left and right). Why aren't the ethmoid sinuses a paired organ for the MP/H Rules? What MP rule applies to this case?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession a single primary.

The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). Go to the Head and Neck MP rules after determining the histology of each tumor - (8070/3 [squamous cell carcinoma] and 8010/3 [carcinoma, NOS]) because site specific rules have been developed for this primary.

Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. Abstract a single when one tumor is carcinoma, NOS [8010] and another tumor is a specific carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma [8070] because the ethmoid sinus (site of origin) is not a paired site per the MP/H rules.

We will review the list of paired organs for the next edition of the MP/H Rules.

 2012
20120035

Reportability--Pancreas: What is the histology code if well differentiated pancreatic endocrine neoplasms (PanNETs) are reportable?

Pancreatic (neuro)endocrine neoplasms (PanNETs) are reportable. The correct histology code is 8240/3. The grade is coded as 1 [well differentiated].

 2012
20120051 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What histology code for a diagnosis of pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology as lobular carcinoma, in situ [8520/2].

The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). Go to the Breast Histo rules because site specific rules exist for this primary.

Start at the SINGLE TUMOR: IN SITU CARCINOMA ONLY module, Rule H1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order. Stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing. Code the histology to lobular carcinoma in situ [8520/2] because this is the only histologic type identified.

Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma is a variant of lobular carcinoma which does not have an ICD-O-3 code. It is still a lobular carcinoma. The identification of the variants of lobular carcinoma was a relatively recent discovery and the information was not available when the 2007 MP/H Rules were written. All of the lobular variants will be included in the next revision of the MP/H Rules.

2012
20120055 Surgery of Primary Site--Kidney, renal pelvis: How do you code a laparoscopic renal mass core biopsy followed by cryoablation of the tumor? See Discussion. The note under the local tumor destruction codes states "No specimen sent to pathology from this surgical event 10-15." The patient had a pathologic specimen submitted from his core biopsy, but this was not a tumor excision or excisional biopsy [codes 20, 26-27]. Is the correct surgery code 13 [cryosurgery] because the tumor was only ablated and not excised, or surgery code 23 [any combination of 20 or 26-27 with cryosurgery] because a pathology specimen was submitted? Code for Surgery of Primary Site to 13 [Cryosurgery]. While the core biopsy provided a pathology specimen, it is not coded as surgery of the primary site. 2012
20120058 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be accessioned when the patient is diagnosed with an acute neoplasm (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma) per a pathology report and is subsequently diagnosed clinically with a chronic neoplasm (chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma) less than 21 days later? See Discussion.

The patient was diagnosed with an extranodal DLBCL on a biopsy of the stomach. A bone marrow biopsy performed 16 days later showed no DLBCL, but demonstrated an abnormal CD5-positive B-cell population that was subsequently referred to as CLL/SLL by the physician. The peripheral blood was negative and showed only moderate thrombocytopenia.

Does rule M10 apply in this case? Abstract the acute neoplasm as a single primary (DLBCL) as there was only one pathology specimen (stomach biopsy) proving DLBCL and the bone marrow did not definitively identify CLL/SLL.

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

This case should be accessioned as two primaries per Rule M11. Code the histology of one primary to 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma], the acute neoplasm. Code the histology for the second primary to 9823/3 [chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma], the chronic neoplasm.

Per Rule M11, abstract as multiple primaries when both a chronic and acute neoplasm are diagnosed simultaneously or less than or equal to 21 days apart AND there is documentation of two pathology specimens, one confirming the chronic neoplasm (bone marrow biopsy) and one confirming the acute neoplasm (stomach biopsy).

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.

2012
20120015

Diagnostic confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How does one determine and code a clinical diagnosis for the diagnostic confirmation in patient diagnosed with essential thrombocythemia? See Discussion.

The Heme DB originally stated the Definitive Diagnostic Method is coded to 8 [clinical diagnosis only] while an updated version stated it can coded as a clinical diagnosis or it can be based on the results of a bone marrow biopsy or a genetic test. The Abstractor Note section specifies this is a diagnosis of exclusion. According to a recent Web-based training seminar, the JAK-2 diagnosis would be coded 5 [positive laboratory test/marker study]. Doesn't the Definitive Diagnostic Method of a clinical diagnosis/diagnosis of exclusion mean that the diagnostic confirmation of essential thrombocythemia will always be coded as 8 [clinical diagnosis only]? Many people use code 3 for positive bone marrow biopsy and genetics (JAK-2), but the bone marrow is usually reported as only borderline or is stated to be abnormal for a person's age.

 

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

Code the diagnostic confirmation to 8 [clinical diagnosis only] in this case.

Per the Heme DB, JAK-2 is only positive in about 50% of essential thrombocythemia (ET) patients. In addition, a positive JAK-2 test does not identify the type of myeloproliferative disease (MPN) the patient has, only the presence or absence of the JAK-2 mutation.

The WHO guidelines for diagnosing ET are: elevated platelet count over months and the elimination of other causes for an elevated platelet count (such as polycythemia vera (PV), chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), idiopathic myelofibrosis, or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)); the absence of Philadelphia chromosome, BCR/ABL fusion gene; and del(5q), t(3;3)(q21;26),inv(3)(q21q26)).

Subsequently, the physician rules out any underlying causes of thrombocytosis such as an inflammation or infection, other neoplasms, and prior splenectomy.

Ultimately, there is a diagnosis of exclusion. In other words, all other causes for the elevated platelet count have been excluded. The physician assembles the information from the blood counts, bone marrow and JAK-2 testing along with the information that excludes all other diseases and makes a clinical diagnosis of ET.

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.

2012
20120057 Reportability--Appendix: Is a low grade mucinous neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential with an in situ mucinous cystadenoma component reportable? See Discussion. The patient was diagnosed with pseudomyxoma peritonei and the pathology report final diagnosis stated, "Low grade mucinous neoplasm, of uncertain malignant potential, involving a dilated appendix (5cm) with the following features: In situ mucinous cystadenoma component is identified, with low-grade cytology of neoplastic epithelium." Does the presence of an in situ component make this mucinous cystadenoma of the appendix reportable based on the ICD-O-3 matrix rule?

This diagnosis is not reportable. Cystadenoma is not reportable. The "in situ" description in this case does not make cystadenoma reportable.

According to our expert pathologist consultant, this is a "non-invasive, low grade, epithelial proliferation in an often cystic appendiceal tumor, 8480/1. If this has leaked or ruptured it can seed the peritoneal cavity causing pseudomyxoma peritonei."

2012
20120009 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded when the pathology report states the morphologic features and immunophenotype of a low grade B-cell lymphoma are most compatible with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma or marginal zone lymphoma?

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

Code the histology to 9591/3 [B-cell lymphoma, NOS] per Rule PH28 which states that one is to code the histology when the diagnosis is

  • specific histology
  • specific histologies
  • Heme DB Multiple Primaries Calculator documents the specific histologies and NOS are the

There is only one non-specific histology code mentioned, low grade B-cell lymphoma. This term is synonymous with B-cell lymphoma, NOS.

Per the Multiple Primaries Calculator, when comparing the histology 9591/3 [B-cell lymphoma, NOS] and 9671/3 [lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma], it is the same primary. When comparing the histology 9591/3 [B-cell lymphoma, NOS] and 9699/3 [marginal zone lymphoma], it is the same primary.

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.

2012
20120094

Reportability: Given that per the 2012 SEER Manual and SINQ 20120081 VIN II-III is no longer reportable, does this change exclusively apply to VIN II-III or does it also apply to AIN II-III, VAIN II-III, etc.? See Discussion.

VIN II-III was a reportable condition in the past. There was a SINQ note to that effect which is now gone from the system. Would it be better to reactivate that note and put a date reference in it so that there is documentation available to confirm this disease (and other IN II-III diseases) was previously reportable? If the note is not reactivated, could there be some indication in SINQ 20120081 of the prior reportability of this disease process?

For cases diagnosed 2021 or later, VIN II-III is reportable. Similarly, AIN II-III, VAIN II-III, etc. are reportable. For cases diagnosed 2021 or later, the primary resource for reportability is ICD-O-3.2. Squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II is listed in ICD-O-3.2 as 8077/2 making it reportable. This applies to the various sites of intraepithelial neoplasia grade II including anus, vulva, and vagina.

 2012
20120020

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be accessioned when a lumpectomy shows a single 6 mm "infiltrating mammary adenocarcinoma, histologic type: ductal (tubular)" tumor, and "peritumoral microscopic foci of solid type ductal carcinoma in situ"? See Discussion.

Per SINQ 20091117, tubular (ductal) carcinoma would be coded to 8211/3 [tubular]. However, in that case the tubular/ductal carcinoma is composed of a single tumor. In this case, the foci of DCIS were specifically stated to be peritumoral, and not a part of the infiltrating tubular carcinoma.

Are these microscopic foci of DCIS a separate primary per Rule M12 and SINQ 20110092 [two primaries are accessioned when one tumor is invasive and another is in situ, and histology codes differ at 1st, 2nd or 3rd numbers]? Does the size of the DCIS matter when there are two distinct histologies? Abstracting a second primary for these microscopic foci seems like over-reporting.

The following answers depend on what this pathologist means by "ductal (tubular)." According to the WHO classification, tubular is not a duct subtype. Check with the pathologist if possible to determine if the intended meaning is "tubular carcinoma" or "duct carcinoma".

If the pathologist uses the expression "ductal (tubular)" as an equivalent of "tubular carcinoma": Accession two primaries, a tubular carcinoma [8211/3] and a ductal carcinoma in situ, solid type [8230/2].

For cases diagnosed 2007 and later, the steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Determine the provisional histologies of these tumors in order to apply the Multiple Primary rules. Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a breast primary, use the Breast Histology rules to determine the histology codes because there are site specific rules for breast primaries.

Determine the histology of in situ carcinoma, solid type ductal carcinoma in situ. Start at Rule H1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the applicable Module. Code the more specific histologic term when the diagnosis is intraductal carcinoma and a type of intraductal carcinoma. Solid is a specific type of DCIS. The histology is 8230/2.

Determine the histology of the invasive carcinoma, tubular carcinoma. Start at Rule H10. Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified, Tubular carcinoma was the only type identified. The histology is 8211/3.

Go to the Breast MP rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual after determining the histology of each tumor. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS Module, Rule M4, because the patient has a single invasive tumor and separate foci of DCIS. These tumors have ICD-O-3 histology codes that are different at the third (xxx) number and are, therefore, multiple primaries.

If the pathologist uses the expression "ductal (tubular)" as an equivalent of "duct carcinoma": Accession a single primary, a duct carcinoma [8500/3].

For cases diagnosed 2007 and later, the steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Go to the Breast MP rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS Module, Rule M4 because the patient has a single invasive duct carcinoma and separate foci of solid type ductal carcinoma in situ. Multiple intraductal and/or duct carcinomas are a single primary. Table 1 identifies solid type as a specific type of intraductal carcinoma.

Go to the Breast Histology rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS ABSTRACTED AS A SINGLE PRIMARY Module, Rule H20. Code the invasive histology when both invasive and in situ tumors are present. Code the histology as 8500/3 [duct carcinoma].

 2012