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: 02/12/2026 09:04 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20140049

Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is Tuberculum sellae meningioma reportable? Is it same as sphenoidale meningioma?

Path: Brain tuberculum tumor resection: Meningioma, WHO grade I.

Revised answer based on ST rules

Yes, a Tuberculum sella meningioma is reportable if diagnosed 2004 or later. Code the primary site C700, cerebral meninges. It is a meningioma originating from the meninges of the Tuberculum sellae, which is part of the sphenoid bone.

 2014
20140025

Grade--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Why isn't "T-cell granular lymphocytic leukemia" (9831/3) coded as "5 T-cell" instead of "9" as specified in the Heme database? My path department did not specify any type of grade, but since "T-cell" is part of the name, wouldn't you code it to "5"?

Assign code 5 when the diagnosis on the pathology report specifies "T-cell granular lymphocytic leukemia." The Heme DB grade instruction states "Code grade specified by pathologist. If no grade specified, code 9." In this case, T-cell was specified - code it. The code for T-cell (5) was not automatically assigned in the Heme DB because of the alternate names for this neoplasm. Some of these include NK-cell. Assign code 8 for alternate names with NK.

The alternate names are: Chronic lymphoproliferative disorder of NK cells, Chronic NK-cell lymphocytosis, Chronic NK-large granular lymphocyte (LGL) lymphoproliferative disorder, CLPD-NK, Indolent large granular NK-cell lymphoproliferative disorder, NK-cell lineage granular lymphocyte proliferative disorder, NK-cell LGL lymphocytosis

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
20140021 Reportability--Breast: Is an inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor of the breast with metastasis to the lung reportable? Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor of the breast with metastasis to the lung is reportable. Metastasis to the lung from the breast tumor indicates that the breast tumor is malignant. All malignant neoplasms are reportable. 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
20140033

Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Prostate: Can you clarify why a prostate biopsy diagnosis of “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” is not reportable while a biopsy diagnosis of “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable? See discussion.

SINQ 20091103 states that prostate biopsies showing “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” are NOT reportable. However, SINQ 20071056 states that “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable. This appears to be an issue of semantics with no clearly outlined method to determine reportability of such cases.

We have two recent cases with similar semantic issues and want to know whether they are reportable.

1) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation, highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma, with quality/quantity insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer.”

2) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma but due to the small size of focus, findings are not definitively diagnostic.”

Both case examples provided are reportable using instructions for ambiguous terminology. The diagnoses are qualified by the words "highly suspicious" because neither diagnosis is definitive ("insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer" and "not definitively diagnostic."). However, we follow our instructions for interpreting ambiguous terminology and report these cases.

SINQ 20091103 differs slightly. The final diagnosis in 20091103 declares unequivocally "not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma." That phrase in the final diagnosis negates the ambiguous terminology. The situation in 20071056 is similar to the two examples above - the ambiguous terminology instructions apply.

2014
20140066

First course treatment: When a patient has a Haplo bone marrow transplant, is this coded as an allogenic bone marrow transplant since part of his marrow was used in addition to a donor?

Use code 12 in the Hematologic Transplant & Endocrine Procedures data field. Per the NCI, this procedure is an allogeneic transplant.

Rather than wiping out a patient’s immune system before transplanting donor bone marrow, doctors administer just enough chemotherapy to suppress the immune system, which keeps patients from rejecting the donated marrow without harming their organs. The procedure requires just a half-match, meaning that a patient’s parents or children could be suitable donors. AKA: Half-match transplants.

2014
20140029

MP/H Rules/Histology-Urinary: 1) What is the correct ICD-O-3 morphology code for conventional renal cell carcinoma? Is this clear cell carcinoma or does conventional refer to the general diagnosis?

2) If a patient was diagnosed with invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma of the bladder in May 2011 and returns in February 2013 with invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, what is the correct ICD-O-3 morphology code?

1) Clear cell renal carcinoma, code 8310, is often called conventional renal cell carcinoma. It is specific compared to renal cell carcinoma, NOS, code 8312, a general morphology term for the majority of kidney cancers. See  kidney rules H5 and H12 and Table 1 on page 57 of the Kidney Terms and Definitions, http://www.seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/mphrules_definitions.pdf

2) Do not change the ICD-O-3 code assigned for the 2011 diagnosis. As you know, the 2013 diagnosis is not a new primary per rule M6.

2014
20140031

MP/H Rules: Regarding rules for Renal Pelvis, ureters, bladder & urethra - Please clarify Rule M8. Rule M8 references Table 1, but table 1 is a table of histologies not primary sites, Rule M8 also seems to contradict Table 2 and Rule M10. Does it matter where the first primary is, ie bladder then urethra or bladder then renal pelvis?

Table 2 does not apply to diagnoses in 2007 and later. A watermark over (or near) Table 2 states "Do not use for cases diagnosed on or after 2007." Table 2 lists previous SEER site groupings for cases prior to 2007.

The MP/H rules are in hierarchical order. Use the first rule that applies. When Rule M8 applies, there is no need to check Rule M10. Rule M8 is for the urinary sites listed and derives single primary. Rule M10 is for all sites, except the sites listed in Rule M8, and derives multiple primaries.

It does not matter where the first primary is, i.e. bladder then urethra or bladder then renal pelvis. If there are two or more tumors in two or more of these four sites listed in Rule M8 with histologies listed on Table 1, abstract as a single primary.

2014
20140083

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Thyroid: How many primaries should be reported when a complete thyroidectomy specimen shows two tumors: 1.8 cm papillary carcinoma with tall cell features (8344/3) and a 0.4 cm papillary thyroid carcinoma (8260/3)? See discussion.

Is papillary thyroid carcinoma an NOS histology qualifying for rule M16, thus leading to a single primary, or would M17 apply (multiple primaries) because the histology codes are different at the second digit (8260 and 8344)? While rule M16 doesn't include papillary thyroid carcinoma in the listed histologies, it seems like it may be an NOS histology for the thyroid. In addition, code 8260/3 is listed as NOS in the ICD-O-3.

Apply rule M16 and abstract a single primary. These two thyroid tumors, one papillary carcinoma with tall cell features (8344/3) and one papillary thyroid carcinoma, fit the criteria for rule M16, although not explicity listed there. We will clarify this in the next version of the rules.

2014