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: 02/27/2026 18:31 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20140004 Grade--Liver: How should grade be coded for a liver lesion treated with radio frequency ablation (RFA) followed by a transplant showing moderately differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma? See discussion. The SEER Manual emphasizes the importance of coding grade only prior to neoadjuvant treatment as systemic treatment and radiation can alter a tumor's grade. This patient did not have neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiation, but did undergo a prior surgical procedure (RFA) in an attempt to destroy tumor tissue. The subsequent transplant showed residual moderately differentiated HCC. For this case, record the grade specified even though it is after RFA. RFA is not systemic or radiation treatment and should not alter the grade. 2014
20140035

Reportability/MP/H Rules/Histology: Is this kidney tumor diagnosis reportable? If so, what is the correct histology? See discussion.

Left radical nephrectomy: Tumor histologic type: Renal angiomyoadenomatous tumor (see Note). Note: The a clear cell papillary renal cell tumor and a renal angiomyoadenomatous tumor (""RAT"") (reval cell carcinoma with angioleiomyoma-like stroma). Although some authors consider RAT tumors to represent a pattern of clear cell papillary RCC we believe that this represents a dstinct entity. The combined findings ...confirm the diagnosis of renal angiomyoadenomatous (RAT) tumor. These tumors are also known as renal cell carcinoma within angioleiomyoma-like stroma. To date none of these tumors have developed metastases. Given the small number of reported cases we would consider these to have at worst a low malignant potential.

According to our expert pathologist adviser, renal angiomyoadenomatous tumor ("RAT") is not reportable. He states "l would be reluctant to consider the entity malignant. The authors of the papers describing it do not seem ready to call it malignant either. I agree with calling it LMP, or in this case uncertain malignant potential."

2014
20140063

MP/H Rules--Histology: How is histology coded when a metastatic site is biopsy positive for adenocarcinoma, but the physician clinically states this is cholangiocarcinoma? See discussion.

The patient underwent a PTA biopsy of a lytic mass showing metastatic adenocarcinoma. Imaging revealed a large hepatic mass consistent with cholangiocarcinoma. The physician's impression on a physical exam note was the PTA biopsy was most consistent with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. However, the PTA pathology report was reviewed at this facility and the final diagnosis was not stated to be cholangiocarcinoma, only adenocarcinoma, NOS.

The priority order for coding histology rules in the MP/H Manual indicates pathology has priority over documentation in the medical record. Following the rules in the MP/H Manual, the histology would be coded as 8140 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS]. While this may be technically correct, it seems that intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is often diagnosed as adenocarcinoma on biopsy, but further stated to be cholangiocarcinoma by the physician once other primary sites have been excluded. By applying the rules in the MP/H Manual, cases that seem better characterized as cholangiocarcinomas are being collected as adenocarcinoma, NOS. Should the histology be adenocarcinoma [8140/3] or cholangiocarcinoma [8160/3] for these cases?

When the physician has reviewed all of the pertinent information, and the physician's opinion is documented stating that the histology is cholangiocarcinoma, code cholangiocarcinoma.

A pathology report from a primary site has the highest priority for coding histology; however, there is no such pathology report in this case. We will review the histology coding instructions and add clarification in the next version.

2014
20140082

MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: How should histology be coded for a testicular teratoma with somatic type malignancy (adenocarcinoma)? See discussion.

11/8/2013 Rt orchiectomy: teratoma with somatic type malignancy (adenocarcinoma).

5/2/2014 Abdominal mass excision: metastatic teratoma involving matted lymph nodes. Patient age at diagnosis is 31.

Per web search, a teratoma with somatic type malignancy is a rare type of tumor. Should the histology be coded to 8140/3? This seems to conflict with SINQ 20120085, which indicates a testicular mature teratoma in an adult is malignant, and in this example, it was also the portion of tumor that metastasized.

Assign code 9084/3, listed in ICDO as teratoma with malignant transformation.

Our expert pathologist consultant states that this is a very rare situation. The non-germ cell components are believed to arise out of the teratoma portions, and are seen in only of few percent of teratomas. They are given the designation "teratoma with somatic type malignancies" (WHO).

2014
20140014 First course treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Anus: Would infrared coagulation be coded as treatment for AIN III of the anus/anal canal? See discussion. SINQ 20051064 indicates infrared coagulation is not treatment for cancer. Internet search explains that infrared coagulation delivers heat to destroy the tissue so it can be removed. In our region it is currently used to treat internal and external anal low grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) and high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL). While it is understandable that this wouldn't be coded as treatment for an invasive anal primary, could it be treatment for an in situ tumor? If it is treatment, should it be coded under Surgery code 15 The answer to SINQ 20050164 still applies. Do not code infrared coagulation as cancer treatment. It is used to coagulate blood vessels and not to destroy cancer tissue. 2014
20140012 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What is the correct histology code for this final diagnosis of a breast tumor: INVASIVE POORLY DIFFERENTIATED DUCTAL CARCINOMA WITH SQUAMOUS DIFFERENTIATION (METAPLASTIC FEATURES)?

Code the histology to 8575/3.

The instruction for coding duct and another non-duct histology not listed in Table 3 was inadverantly left out of the rules. The default is to code to the histology with the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code which is 8575/3.

 2014
20140002 Reportability--Appendix: Is a pathologic final diagnosis of an appendix with "well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (carcinoid)" reportable? See discussion. SINQ 20130027 states that "well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" of the appendix is reportable (8240/3) while "carcinoid" tumors of the appendix are not reportable (8240/1). Please explain the difference between "well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" of the appendix and a "carcinoid" of the appendix.

Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor of the appendix is reportable. The difference is terminology. "Carcinoid" is listed in ICD-O-3 as a /1 for appendix making it non-reportable.

When both terms are used, ask for clarification from the pathologist. Failing that, accept the reportable terminology and report the case.

 2014
20140088

Reportability--GIST: The 2014 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual and the answer to SINQ 20100014 appear to conflict with respect to reporting GIST cases. The manual states (p.5, exception 1) that we are to accession the case if the patient is treated for cancer. However, the patient in Example #7 in the SINQ discussion is receiving chemotherapy, but is deemed not reportable. This is a problematic issue in our area, as pathologists prefer using the NCCN “Risk Stratification of Primary GIST by Mitotic Index, Size and Site” table rather than stating whether the tumor is benign or malignant. Although they tell us that moderate or high risk should receive treatment, they will not characterize them as malignant.

Determining reportability for GIST is problematic because of the reluctance of pathologists to use the term "malignant" for GIST cases. If you can document the pathologist's terminology and case characteristics (e.g. treatment) that correspond to "malignant" for your registry as part of the registry's policies and procedures, you can report those cases as malignant.

The exception cited above in the SEER manual pertains to a clinical diagnosis with a negative pathology report. Normally, the negative pathology report would override the clinical diagnosis and the case would not be reportable. However, if the patient is treated for a malignancy in spite of the negative pathology, report the case.

 

2014
20140078

Surgery of Primary Site--Bladder: Is any mention of cautery in the gross description of pathology for a TURBT specimen sufficient to code 22 (excisional biopsy with electrocautery), or does there need to be a statement in the operative report that electrocautery was performed? See discussion.

Often, pathology for TURBT with non-invasive papillary TCC includes a gross description with a variety of cautery descriptions. For example, "received are three cautery roughened gray-pale pink tissue fragments.” However, the operative report is documented as a "TURBT" with no further description of the procedure.

Assign code 22 when cautery is mentioned n the gross description of pathology for a TURBT specimen.

2014
20140026

Histology: Are all well differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (carcinoid) tumors coded to 8240 or 8246? When do you use code 8246?

Code 8246 is correct when the mass/lesion is referred to as neuroendocrine "carcinoma" or NEC. Use code 8240 when the mass/lesion is referred to as a neuroendocrine "tumor" or NET G1. The difference is the word tumor versus carcinoma. Carcinoid is most often used interchangeably with neuroendocrine tumor and not with neuroendocrine carcinoma.

2014