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: 04/29/2025 11:13 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20140038

MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Urinary: How many primaries are there and which MP rules apply in this scenario? See discussion.

Patient has 2 tumors in the left ureter; one is transitional cell (8120) and one is papillary transitional cell (8130). Rule M6 says BLADDER tumors with any combination of the following histologies ... are a single primary. But this is not a bladder case. Rule M8 says urothelial tumors in 2 or more of the following sites are a single primary... but this is not in 2 or more sites. Rule M9 then says histologies different at the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd digit are separate primaries. That makes this 2 primaries, but I do not think this should be 2 primaries.

Rule M9 applies. Abstract 2 primaries.

We will evaluate this scenario for the next version of the multiple primary rules.

2014
20140064

Reportability--Testis: Is a mature teratoma of the testis reportable? See discussion.

Mature teratoma is listed as a benign neoplasm (9080/0) in the ICD-O-3. SINQ 20120085 references a NAACCR Webinar that indicated pure mature teratomas of the testis in adults are reportable. We are not aware of any further documentation of this change in reportability. When did mature teratomas of the testis for adults become reportable? What is the defined age range for "adult"? The original SINQ question above lists the 2012 SEER Manual as a Reference, however, no clarification or mention of this change in reportability was found in that manual.

For testis, mature teratoma in an adult (post-puberty) is reportable because it is malignant (9080/3); however, mature teratoma in a child is benign (9080/0). The 2011 NAACCR webinar introduced this concept and it was documented in the 2012 SINQ question. You may use 2011 or 2012 as the date of this change. The next edition of the SEER manual will include reportability examples.

2014
20140040

Reportability/Primary Site--Lip: Is a right lower lip (NOS) squamous cell carcinoma reportable when the microscopic description states the tumor arises from the epidermis and extends through the dermis? See discussion.

We are having difficulty determining whether the primary site is lip, NOS (C009) or skin of lip (C440). Usually we look for a statement of “skin” or “mucosa” in the microscopic description if the specimen label is only lip, NOS as instructed by the previous SINQ 20051049. Is a statement of "epidermis" or "dermis" in the microscopic description enough to indicate carcinoma is arising in the skin of the lip (C440) and thus not reportable?

This case is interpreted as skin of lip and not reportable. According to our expert pathologist consultant, the pathologist in this case "is specifically saying "epidermis" and "dermis" and I would have to think it is skin, and thus not reportable."

2014
20140074

Surgery of Primary Site--Brain and CNS: What procedure code would be used for NeuroBlate Laser Interstitial Thermal Therapy? This procedure was used for a Glioblastoma of the brain.

If a pathologic specimen is not taken during this procedure, code in the surgery field using code 10 (Local tumor destruction, NOS). If specimen is sent to pathology, code 90, surgery, NOS. We will request this procedure be included in future treatment field coding documentation.

Our research notes that this procedure, also known as LITT (Laser Interstitial Thermal Therapy), is a surgical treatment. Lasers transmit heat to coagulate or destroy the brain tumors from the inside out.

2014
20140027

MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: What is the correct histology for the following bladder case and how do you determine? See discussion.

8/1/10 CYSTOSCOPY -- MULTIPLE BLADDER TUMORS INVOLVING POSTERIOR WALL, DOME & BLADDER NECK AREA. LARGEST WOULD BE MORE THAN 5 CM IN SIZE. 8/17/10 path -- BLADDER TUMORS:PAPILLARY TRANSITIONAL CELL CARCINOMA OF urinary bladder, GRADE III. ONE FRAGMENT OF TISSUE SHOWS NECROTIC CHANGE WITH APPARENT TRANSFORMATION TO A HIGH GRADE SARCOMATOID VARIANT W ITH EXTENSIVE SUBMUCOSAL INVASION & FOCAL AREA SUGGESTIVE OF ANGIOLYMPHATIC INVASION NOTED. MAJORITY OF TUMOR APPEARS CONFINED TO MUCOSAL SURFACE W ITH NO OTHER AREAS OF DEFINITIVE SUBMUCOSAL INVASION FOUND.

Code 8122/3 (UC/TCC, Sarcomatoid). Rule H5 and Table 1 apply.

This is based on the information provided: Transitional Cell Carcinoma with sarcomatoid variant, and Table 1 in Terms and Definitions for "Ureter/Renal Pelvis/Bladder".

2014
20140001 Grade--Brain and CNS: How should grade be coded for a pineal parenchymal tumor of "intermediate differentiation"? See discussion.

Per a web search, the term "pineal parenchymal tumor of intermediate differentiation" refers to a pineal tumor with the histology/behavior that falls somewhere between the category of pineocytoma (9361/1) and pineoblastoma (9362/3). In other words, it is a malignant tumor that is a WHO grade II/III neoplasm because it's histologic features and behavior are not quite equivalent to a pineoblastoma (WHO grade IV). Thus, it appears the expression "intermediate differentiation" is actually referring to a type of WHO classification system rather than the grade field.

Should the type of documentation provided in pathology report be used to imply the grade field is being referenced and thus be coded to 2 for "intermediate differentiation" or should grade be coded to 9 based on the information found during the web search?

Code the grade as 2 based on instruction #8 in the revised grade instructions for 2014.

Do not use WHO grade to code the grade field for CNS tumors.

 2014
20140019

Reportability--Breast: Is this reportable as 8520/2?

Final Diagnosis: Atypical Lobular Hyperplasia (ALH/LCIS). We are seeing this diagnosis quite often.

 ALH/LCIS is reportable. LCIS (lobular carcinoma in situ) is a reportable neoplasm. When LCIS is stated as the final diagnosis, report the case. 2014
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
20140084

Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the 1995 diagnosis be changed to plasmacytoma? A 1995 case on the central registry database indicates that MRI and bone surveys revealed a pubic ramus lesion that was biopsied. There are no other bone lesions. A bone marrow biopsy was negative. The pathologist's diagnosis at that time was "Plasma Cell Myeloma". In 2013 there was a positive bone marrow biopsy and a diagnosis of Plasma Cell Myeloma. In 2013, a history of "sequential plasmacytomas since 1995" was mentioned. Since the 1995 diagnosis was only a solitary bone lesion with no marrow involvement, it certainly seems to fit a diagnosis of plasmacytoma better than myeloma.

Do not change the 1995 diagnosis in this case. It is best to code the histology according to information from the time of the diagnosis. Using information obtained many years later is less reliable.

2014
20140071

Reportability--Lung: One of our facilities has a case they are not really sure how to report.

This patient came in for a double lung transplant due to COPD which occurred on 1/27/14. At time of transplant, the team found out the donor hospital had identified a small nodule in the right lower lobe donor lung, which they biopsied and deemed negative. However, the slides were reviewed and felt to represent adenocarcinoma. The team performed a right lower lobe lobectomy of the donor lung before transplanting into the patient.

So, we are not really sure how to handle this case. The adenocarcinoma actually belongs to the donor patient from another hospital, however, they actually didn’t identify it at that facility as their pathology was negative for a malignancy.

This very interesting case is not reportable to either facility. Since the right lower lobe nodule was resected prior to transplantation, the case does not belong to your patient. Ideally, the cancer should be assigned to the donor; however, donor information is confidential.

2014