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: 04/28/2026 05:19 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20160066

MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What histology code and MP/H Rule applies to the Histologic Type of "invasive ductal carcinoma with metaplastic stroma" for a single breast tumor? See Discussion.

The patient had a partial mastectomy with final diagnosis of invasive ductal carcinoma with metaplastic stroma. Knowing that metaplastic breast carcinoma has a worse prognosis than other types of breast cancer, is metaplastic stroma a synonym for metaplastic carcinoma when used in this context?

Code to metaplastic carcinoma, 8575/3. According to our expert pathologist consultant, "The term 'metaplastic stroma' implies that at least a portion of the carcinoma has undergone a 'metaplastic' change from epithelial in appearance to 'stromal' in appearance. I assume this is what CAP means by 'Invasive mammary carcinoma with matrix production,' which the WHO equates to metaplastic carcinoma."

2016
20160054

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Melanoma: How many melanoma primaries should be abstracted if, during the workup for a metastatic melanoma of an unknown cutaneous site, an in situ melanoma is also discovered? See Discussion.

Patient has diagnosis of melanoma with spindle cell features found in a right lower lobectomy specimen. Chart notes indicate this is metastatic from a cutaneous primary of unknown site. Further work up includes a biopsy of the tip of the nose, which is diagnostic for in situ melanoma. Should this be abstracted as two separate primaries, one for an invasive melanoma of unknown primary site and the other for an in situ melanoma of the skin on the tip of the nose? Which MP/H Rule would apply?

Yes, abstract this as two separate primaries, an invasive melanoma of unknown primary site and an in situ melanoma of the skin on the tip of the nose. Rule M3 applies.

2016
20160055

Reportability--Bone: Is an "atypical cartilaginous tumor" reportable? See Discussion.

Patient had a core needle biopsy of the right acetabulum. Final diagnosis on the path report is: Atypical cartilaginous tumor (formerly chondrosarcoma, grade 1).

Is this cell type reportable? If so, is it reportable only because the pathologist recorded clarifying text in parentheses? If the text in the parentheses was not available, is the histology "atypical cartilaginous tumor" reportable?

Atypical cartilaginous tumor of bone is not reportable. The WHO terminology is "atypical cartilagenous tumor/chondrosarcoma grade I." WHO classifies this entity as low malignant potential (behavior code /1).

Chondrosarcoma grade II or grade III is reportable based on the WHO classification of malignant (behavior code /3).

2016
20160012

Reportability--Brain and CNS:  Is a thalamic amyloidoma reportable if so what histology code is used?

Thalamic amyloidoma is not reportable. Amyloidoma (tumoral amyloidosis, amyloid tumor) is a tumor-like deposit of amyloid. It is not neoplastic. Amyloid is a protein derived substance deposited in various clinical settings.

2016
20160070

Primary site/MP/H Rules/Histology: What is the appropriate site and histology code for a tumor described as a "Large mass In suprasellar cistern encroaching into sphenoid & ethmoid sinuses", with the pathology described as "INI-1 deficient sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma"? Of note, this patient has a history of a pituitary adenoma, resected overseas a few months prior to this diagnosis.

The primary site is unclear. The lesion is intracranial, but this may not be the primary site. In the absence of any additional information, assign C390, 8020/3. According to WHO, sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma can involve the nasal cavity, maxillary antrum, and/or ethmoid sinus.

SMARCB1 (INI-1) is a tumor-suppressor gene located on chromosome 22q11.2. Tumors that showed loss of expression were SMARCB1-deficient tumors which are characterized by nests, sheets, and cords of cells without any histologic evidence of specific (eg, squamous or glandular) differentiation.

2016
20160031

MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: What is the code for Rosette-forming glioneural tumor from a pathology report of a brain tumor biopsy for a date of diagnosis in 2015? See Discussion.

This diagnosis is not listed in the ICD-O-3 though it is listed as code 9509/1 for this specific tumor in the 2007 WHO classification of Tumours of Central Nervous System. (See link:  http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00401-007-0243-4/fulltext.html.)

Assign 9505/1 for Rosette-forming glioneuronal tumor. The new code, 9509/1, has not been implemented in the United States. 9505/1 is to be used until the new code is implemented. See page 7 of the NAACCR Guidelines for ICD-O-D Implementation, effective January 1, 2014, http://www.naaccr.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=u7d3sB71t5w%3d&tabid=126&mid=466.

2016
20160011

Reportability--Stomach: Are microcarcinoid tumors reportable? See discussion.

SINQ 20081076 states carcinoid tumorlets of the lung are not reportable and are defined as being less than 5 mm in diameter and benign. Per the WHO Classification of Digestive Tumours, microcarcinoid tumors are precursor lesions/nodules measuring greater than 0.5 mm, but less than 5 mm (0.5 cm). Is the term microcarcinoid tumor equivalent to carcinoid tumorlet, and therefore not reportable? Or is a microcarcinoid tumor a reportable type of neuroendocrine tumor (NET)?

Microcarcinoid and carcinoid tumors are reportable. The ICD-O-3 histology code is 8240/3. Microcarcinoid is a designation for neuroendocrine tumors of the stomach when they are less than 0.5 cm. in size. Neuroendocrine tumors of the stomach are designated carcinoid when they are 0.5 cm or larger.

The term microcarcinoid tumor is not equivalent to carcinoid tumorlet.               

2016
20160004

First course treatment/Other therapy: How is Sirolimus (Rapamycin) to be coded when given with known chemotherapy agents in a clinical trial? See discussion.

The SEER*Rx Database lists Sirolimus as an ancillary agent under the Category section, but as an mTOR inhibitor under the Subcategory. The Remarks section indicates Sirolimus (AKA Rapamycin) is an immunosuppressant, but is also a type of serine/threonine kinase inhibitor. Other types of kinase inhibitors (including Temsirolimus) are types of Chemotherapy. Although the Coding section states this drug should not be coded, Primary Sites (NSCLC and glioblastoma) are listed for this drug.

The SEER*Rx Database page for this drug is confusing. Please address the following.

1) Should Sirolimus not be coded when it is being given as a kinase inhibitor or an immunosuppressant?

2) If Sirolimus is ever treatment, should it be coded only for the primary sites listed?

3) If Sirolimus is given as part of a non-blind clinical trial for another site other than NSCLC or glioblastoma, should the Other Therapy field be coded to 2 [experimental - other treatment]?

Sirolimus is used to treat GVHD (graft versus host disease) and is not coded as treatment. Even though the sub-category is mTOR inhibitor it does not automatically mean it is a chemotherapeutic agent. Sirolimus affects cells differently than Temsirolimus.  The chemical compounds differ between these drugs. In order to code rapamycin, the drug given must be stated to be either the analog or ester compound.  The SEER*RX database has been corrected and NSCLC/glioblastoma are no longer listed for sirolimus.

 We researched clinical trials and found several that include sirolimus with other chemotherapy drugs for patients who either have received or will be receiving bone marrow transplants for hematologic diseases. In this case it is not coded. There are a few trials that are looking at sirolimus as a treatment for bladder, prostate, nerve sheath tumors, MDS, and AML. For these cases it would be coded in Other (code 2).

 2016
20160064

Behavior--Prostate: What is the correct behavior of intraductal carcinoma from a prostate biopsy with a Gleason score 4+4=8. While highly aggressive, but not suggestive of invasion, coding behavior as /2 seems inappropriate.

WHO classifies intraductal carcinoma of the prostate 8500/2. According to WHO, "the hallmark of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate is a proliferation of prostate carcinoma cells that is within and may significantly expand the native prostatic ducts and acini, with the basal cell layer at least partially preserved." Further, differentiation between intraductal carcinoma and infiltrating high-grade carcinoma of the prostate may require basal cell stains. Under Prognosis, WHO states: " intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on prostate biopsies is often associated with high-grade cancer (with a mean Gleason score of 8) ."

So while it may seem counter-intuitive, assign behavior code /2 when the diagnosis is intraductal carcinoma of the prostate.

 2016
20160046

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Bladder: How many primaries should be reported for the case below? See discussion.

1993 Renal pelvis: Papillary urothelial carcinoma

1994 Bladder: Noninvasive bladder ca NOS

6/11/13 Bladder: Noninvasive papillary urothelial carcinoma

8/19/14 Bladder: urothelial carcinoma in situ

2/13/15 Bladder: Papillary urothelial carcinoma

Would this situation be 2 primaries - 1993 Renal pelvis and 1994 Bladder with the 2015 being the same primary as 1993 Renal pelvis? Or 3 primaries - 1993 Renal pelvis, 1994 Bladder, 2015 Bladder?

Abstract four primaries, 1993 renal pelvis, 1994 bladder, 2013 bladder, and 2015 bladder.

The 1993 renal pelvis diagnosis and the 1994 bladder diagnosis are separate primaries based on the rules in effect at that time (See pages 7-11, http://seer.cancer.gov/archive/manuals/historic/codeman_1992.pdf )

For the remaining diagnoses, the 2007 MP/H rules apply. The 2013 bladder diagnosis is a new primary per rule M7. The 2014 bladder diagnosis is not a new primary per rule M6. The 2015 bladder diagnosis is a new primary per rule M5.

2016