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: 01/15/2026 08:03 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20130027

Reportability--Are well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors and grade 1 neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix now reportable? See Discussion.

The terminology for carcinoid tumors has changed. The current terminology used is "neuroendocrine tumor." Are well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix non-reportable because carcinoid, NOS of the appendix has a borderline behavior code [8240/1]? When the histology/behavior codes for the term "well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" became 8240/3, did SEER intend this change to also apply to appendix primaries? If so, for which diagnosis year did this change go into effect?

Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors and grade 1 neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix are reportable because these tumors have a morphology code 8240/3 per the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Digestive System. However, per the ICD-O-3, carcinoid tumors of the appendix have a behavior code of /1 [borderline].

The terminology of neuroendocrine tumors is evolving and current thinking at the international level is that carcinoid/WD NET of appendix is reportable. However, reportability in the United States is based on ICD-O-3. The histology code for "Carcinoid of appendix" is 8240/1; the histology code for a carcinoids of all other primary sites is 8240/3. Until the United States adopts the proposed changes for ICD-O-3, reportability of appendix cases is as follows:

  • Carcinoid
  • Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor
  • Grade 1 neuroendocrine tumor
  • Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor/carcinoid (Pathologist uses both terms in reporting the diagnosis and does not want to choose one diagnosis over the other.)
 2013
20130081 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient is clinically stated to have Stage III follicular lymphoma following a diagnosis suspicious for B-cell lymphoma and is subsequently diagnosed with large B-cell lymphoma? See Discussion.

01/27/2012 R neck mass FNA: Suspicious for B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

02/17/2012 Cervical node bx: In situ involvement by follicular-like B-cells of uncertain significance +CD10. Two other cervical biopsies show infarcted, extensively necrotic lymphoid tissue highly suspicious for B-cell lymphoma.

03/20/2012 Bone marrow: Low grade B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder with plasmacytic differential.

04/18/2012 Medical Oncology treats patient for Stage III follicular lymphoma.

10/16/2012 Cervical LN core bx: CD10+ large B-cell lymphoma.

Should Rule M4 (single primary) and Module 6, Rule PH11 apply to this case?

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: follicular lymphoma [9690/3] diagnosed 02/17/2012 and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3] diagnosed 10/16/2012 per Rule M10. This patient was diagnosed with a chronic neoplasm (follicular lymphoma) followed greater than 21 days later by an acute neoplasm (DLBCL).

The follicular lymphoma was initially diagnosed on 02/17/2012. The cervical node biopsies were "highly suspicious for B-cell lymphoma" [9591/3]. While "suspicious" is a reportable ambiguous term used to accession cases, suspicious cytologies are not SEER reportable and, therefore, the diagnosis date cannot be 01/27/2012. The histology of the first primary would be updated to 9690/3 [follicular lymphoma] based on the Medical Oncology note on 04/18/2012 that confirmed the histology was follicular lymphoma and the patient was being treated for such.

The diagnosis of DLBCL was made 8 months later. Rule M4 cannot apply to this case because the follicular lymphoma and DLBCL were not diagnosed simultaneously. Rule M4 only applies when the two non-Hodgkin lymphomas are diagnosed simultaneously AND in the same location.

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.

2013
20130139 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded when the original slides are reviewed at a later date and the revised diagnosis changes the histology? See Discussion.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3] diagnosed in 5/2010 and treated with chemotherapy. In 11/2012 a bone marrow biopsy revealed small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) [9823/3].

The 2010 slides were reviewed and showed, "a large cell lymphoid proliferation, many of the cells which appear to be prolymphocytes. There are background smaller lymphocytes that are consistent with CLL/SLL. In retrospect, the lymph node most likely represented a prolymphocytic conversion in SLL."

The medical oncologist is calling this a recurrent lymphoma. Should the original 5/2010 diagnosis be changed to 9823/3 [CLL/SLL]? Is this documented in the Heme Manual?

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

Change the histology of the original 2010 diagnosis to 9823/3 [chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma] based on the review of the 2010 slides. The 2010 diagnosis was revised based on the review of slides and the histology should be changed accordingly. The closest example of this is located in the SEER Manual, Changing Information on the Abstract, instruction 3, example 4.

Histology code 9670/3 [SLL] is obsolete for cases diagnosed 2010 and later. All diagnoses of CLL/SLL, CLL, and SLL are now coded to histology code 9823/3 [CLL/SLL].

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.

2013
20130008 Primary site--Kidney, renal pelvis: Should primary site be coded C809 [unknown] or C649 [kidney] when a patient is diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma in a transplanted kidney? Code the primary site to C649 [kidney]. Per the SEER Manual, code the site where the neoplasm originated. There are no separate instructions for coding primary site for transplanted organs. This patient's renal cell carcinoma originated in the kidney [C649]. 2013
20130065 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the higher histology code associated with grade 1 follicular lymphoma [9695/3] be used rather than grade 2 follicular lymphoma [9691/3] in cases of follicular lymphoma grade 1-2? Code histology to 9691/3 [follicular lymphoma, grade 2], histology. For follicular lymphoma, when there is a grade such as 1-2 indicated, take the histology associated with the higher grade disease process, even though the lower grade histology code is higher. 2013
20130082 Ambiguous terminology/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology coded when a skin of lip pathology report demonstrates neoplastic lymphoid infiltrate with small B cells, compatible with B-cell small lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukemia? See Discussion. Ambiguous terminology is not used to code histology. What is the correct histology for this case? There was no other clinical statement from the physician regarding the histology following the release of the pathology report diagnosis.

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

Code the histology to 9823/3 [chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma]. This primary was accessioned based on reportable ambiguous terminology. The surgical pathology report was compatible with B-cell small lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukemia, "compatible with" is a reportable ambiguous term. A neoplastic lymphoid infiltrate is not a reportable diagnosis. Therefore, a diagnosis compatible with CLL/SLL is coded as histology code 9823/3.

The statement that you do not use ambiguous terms to code histology is intended for those NOS histologies with an ambiguous term being used to describe the subtype.

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.

2013
20130124 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is Rosai-Dorfman's syndrome (histiocytosis) a reportable malignant condition? Rosai-Dorfman disease is not reportable. Rosai-Dorfman disease is a rare non-neoplastic disease. This disease can mimic lymphoma and extranodal involvement is frequent. 2013
20130094 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries are accessioned and which M rule applies for a 2010 diagnosis of clear cell adenocarcinoma of the left upper lobe lung followed by a 2012 diagnosis of adenosquamous carcinoma of lung origin without evidence of a primary lung tumor? See Discussion.

Patient was diagnosed with T1 N0 M0 adenocarcinoma with prominent clear cell features [8310/3] in the LUL on 08/05/2010. The patient underwent a lobectomy only.

On 10/09/2012 the patient underwent an iliac bone biopsy showing non-small cell carcinoma with glandular and squamous features [8560/3]. Clinically, the physician is calling this stage IV adenosquamous carcinoma of lung origin involving lymph nodes, spleen and bones. There were no FDG avid pulmonary nodules found. There was no pathologic comparison to the prior lung tumor.

Should the 2012 diagnosis be a new primary because the histology is different from the 2010 diagnosis? Or should this be one primary because there appears to be only metastatic disease with no new primary lung tumor identified in 2012? The choice of one primary seems supported by the fact that the 2012 tumor showed glandular and squamous features, and the 2010 tumor also showed glandular and clear cell (NOS) features. The clear cell could have been a clear cell squamous cell carcinoma. The original tumor was not re-examined.

Accession a single primary, clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] of the left upper lobe lung [C341] diagnosed on 08/05/2010.

The MP/H Rules do not apply to the 2012 diagnosis because only metastatic sites were examined and there was no re-examination of the original 2010 tumor. Therefore, the disease process in 2012 is assumed to be metastatic from the lung primary diagnosed in 2010.

2013
20130044 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient has a biopsy diagnosis of extraosseous plasmacytoma followed fourteen days later with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma on imaging? See Discussion.

On 2/3/12 the patient was diagnosed via biopsy with an extraosseous (extramedullary) plasmacytoma filling both nasal cavities. On 2/16/12 a metastatic workup was performed and showed a lucent lesion in calvarium of Rt frontal bone. 2/17/12 radiation oncology consult states, "I believe this is most likely consistent with multiple myeloma." Subsequently, the 3/1/12 CT of the left shoulder showed a 3.6 cm lytic lesion of humeral head with cortical breakthrough consistent with metastasis or myeloma.

Per the Heme DB, extramedullary plasmacytoma can transform to multiple myeloma. Does that make this multiple primaries with the histologies coded to 9734/3 and 9732/3?

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

This case should be accessioned as a single primary, multiple myeloma [9732/3] diagnosed on 2/3/12 per Rule M8. Abstract the acute neoplasm as a single primary when both a chronic and acute neoplasm are diagnosed simultaneously or within 21 days AND there is documentation of only one positive tissue biopsy.

This patient only had a tissue biopsy of the nasal cavity proving the chronic neoplasm (extraosseous plasmacytoma). The acute neoplasm (multiple myeloma) was diagnosed clinically based on the scans.

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.

2013
20130020 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is aplastic anemia reportable and is it an alternate name for refractory anemia?

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

Aplastic anemia is not reportable and it is not an alternative name for refractory anemia.

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.

2013