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: 01/08/2026 08:21 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20160028

MP/H/Histology--Sarcoma:  How should Ewing Sarcoma/primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET) be coded for a 2012 case?  See Discussion.

SEER SINQ 20031051 applies to cases diagnosed before 2007 and advises:  Code histology as 9260/3, Ewing sarcoma. Ewing sarcoma is a specific histology on the continuum of primitive neuroectodermal tumors. Code Ewing sarcoma as it is more specific than PNET, NOS.

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules.

Apply 2007 MP/H rule H6 and assign the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code that reflects PNET (9364/3).

According to the WHO Tumors of Soft Tissue and Bone, though Ewing sarcoma ICD-O-3 code is 9260/3, Ewing sarcoma with a higher degree of neuroectodermal differentiation present is classically termed peripheral neuroectodermal tumors (PNET).  WHO does not offer guidance how to classify tumors stated to be Ewing sarcoma PNET.

Histology code 9364/3 is assigned for a Ewing/PNET that arises outside of the brain/CNS. Peripheral neuroectodermal tumor (PNET) and peripheral primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PPNET) are Ewing family tumors.

Histology code 9473/3 (PNET, primitive neuroectodermal tumor, central primitive neuroectodermal tumor, or supratentorial PNET) is only used for tumors arising inside the brain/CNS.

2016
20160016

MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: Can the histology for a high grade urothelial carcinoma described as having "extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation" be coded to sarcomatoid transitional cell carcinoma (8122/3)?

Example; TURBT, Final Diagnosis - Urothelial carcinoma, high grade. Type/grade comment: Extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation is present (40-50% of tumor volume).

Code high grade urothelial carcinoma described as having "extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation" to sarcomatoid transitional cell carcinoma (8122/3).

2016
20160074

MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How should histology be coded for a breast primary with resection final diagnosis of "Ductal carcinoma with neuroendocrine features?" See Discussion.

Should the histology for "Ductal carcinoma with neuroendocrine features" be coded to 8500 (Ductal carcinoma, NOS) or 8574 (Adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation)?

Code the histology to 8574/3 for Ductal carcinoma with neuroendocrine features.

Ductal carcinoma is also called "invasive breast carcinoma of no special type." WHO classifies Invasive breast carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation as 8574/3.

2016
20160002

MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Which is the correct histology code to use and which MP/H rule applies in the case of a single lumpectomy specimen that demonstrates two separate tumors with the following histologies.

1) Invasive lobular carcinoma

2) Invasive ductal carcinoma with tubular features

See discussion.

Does ductal carcinoma with tubular features qualify for Breast MP/H Rule H28? Or, is it more appropriate to strictly follow Table 2 (not a type of ductal tumor) and apply Rule H29, thus losing the lobular component?

Abstract a single primary using Rule M13. Assign 8523/3 using rule H29. The code for  invasive ductal carcinoma with tubular features (8523/3) is higher than the code for invasive lobular carcinoma (8520/3). H28 does not apply because 8523/3 is not included as a type of duct carcinoma on Table 2.

2016
20160010

Grade--Head & Neck: How should grade be coded for a tonsillar primary (or other solid tumor) with resection pathology final diagnosis of poorly differentiated SCC with histologic grade: G2-3 of 3. See discussion.

We are seeing multiple head and neck cases with unclear or multiple grade assignments. Another example is alveolar mucosa SCC with histologic grade stated as: Moderately differentiated (G2 of 3). Grade Coding for Solid Tumor instruction 5.b. is not clear regarding this situation. Does a statement of differentiation take priority? Should we disregard the differentiation statement and code using the 3-grade systems?

Use the three-grade system table in instruction #7.b to code grade for the situations you describe. Use the Grade Coding Instructions in order. Instruction #7.b (three-grade system) comes before instruction #8 (terminology).

http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/grade/

2016
20160078

First course treatment/Radiation Therapy--Prostate: How do you code fiducial markers for prostate cases?

Do not code fiducial markers as a form of radiation treatment; rather, code the radiation therapy in the radiation treatment section.  Fiducial markers are small metal spheres, coils, or cylinders that are placed in or near a tumor to help guide the placement of radiation beams during treatment.

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
20160035

Reportability/Histology--Pituitary Gland: How are Rathke cleft cyst and Rathke pouch tumor distinguished and are they both reportable?

Rathke cleft cyst is not reportable. Cysts are not neoplastic. However, Rathke pouch tumor (C751, 9350/1) is a reportable neoplasm for cases diagnosed 2004 and later. The Rathke pouch is coded to the pituitary gland. Benign and borderline pituitary tumors have been reportable since 2004.

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
20160039

First course treatment/Surgery of Primary Site: If a procedure stated to be an "excisional biopsy" doesn't grossly remove the tumor, should Surgery of Primary Site be coded as an excisional biopsy? See Discussion for example.

Would you code an excisional biopsy as Surgery for the following case?

The patient presented with a large protruding polypoid anal canal mass. The diagnosis of malignancy was made following a procedure referred to by the surgeon as an excisional biopsy. The protruding portion of the anal canal mass was excised, but the deep margin was grossly involved. The PE exam after the "excisional biopsy" found a firm mass, 4 cm in length on DRE. Further work-up with imaging showed gross residual disease extending to adjacent skeletal muscle (external anal sphincter). Although the internal/protruding anal canal portion of the tumor was excised, there was clearly extensive residual tumor. The patient underwent definitive concurrent chemoradiation only; subsequent surgery was not planned or performed.

Do not record this excisional biopsy as surgery because there was residual macroscopic tumor. See Note 1 under #4 on page 130 in the SEER manual,  http://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2015/SPCSM_2015_maindoc.pdf

2016