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: 02/20/2026 17:34 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20170058

MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the correct histology code for an initial biopsy of non-small cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine phenotype, possible large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma with a subsequent re-biopsy showing poorly differentiated small cell carcinoma after chemotherapy with no response? See discussion.

Patient had a biopsy in April 2014; pathology was reported as non-small cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine phenotype, possible large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. The patient had five cycles of cisplatin/etoposide with no response. In May 2015, a re-biopsy at a referral institution reports poorly differentiated small cell carcinoma and states "feels that this could have been the histology all along and why patient has failed multi lines of chemo."

Code to 8041, small cell carcinoma, because the medical opinon confirms that this was the correct histology from the begining.

"Possible" is not an ambiguous term used to code histology. The MP/H rules do not include coding phenotype. That leaves non-small cell (8046/3) at time of diagnosis. Chemotherapy does not alter cell type so its likely the tumor was small cell all along only now proven with additional testing.

Page 14 of the SEER Coding Manual gives examples of when to change the abstract's original codes and here is one example: When better information is available later. Example 1: Consults from specialty labs, pathology report addendums or comments or other information have been added to the chart. Reports done during the diagnostic workup and placed on the chart after the registrar abstracted the information may contain valuable information. Whenever these later reports give better information about the histology, grade of tumor, primary site, etc., change the codes to reflect the better information.

 2017
20170001

MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney: How is the histology coded and what rule(s) apply to the classification of succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma? See Discussion.

Partial nephrectomy showed carcinoma, histologic type: succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma. This is not a term in the ICD-O, and is not a histology covered in the Kidney MPH rules. However, a recent web search indicates this is a specific type of RCC that was added to the 2016 WHO classification of RCC (per abstract: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27179267) and makes up 0.05-0.2% of RCC cases (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4229399/).

Code the histology to renal cell carcinoma, NOS (8312/3). While WHO lists succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma in the latest edition, no specific histology code is provided. MP/H Rule H10 applies since only one histology type is provided, though no code is listed.

 2017
20170060

MP/H Rules/Histology/Grade--Unknown & ill-defined sites: What is the correct histology and grade of a liver biopsy with metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma low to intermediate grade if primary site is unknown? See Discussion.

CT-guided liver biopsy, diagnosis: Metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma. Diagnosis Comment: Cytology of the tumor appears to be low to intermediate grade.

Would this case be coded as an atypical carcinoid tumor (8249/3) based on SINQ 20170033 and the statement of intermediate grade; or should this be 8240/3 (neuroendocrine tumor) per SINQ 20160023 because it is a metastatic site? More clarification is needed on when to code 8249/3 or 8240/3 for a neuroendocrine carcinoma or neoplasm seen in a metastatic specimen only when there is specified grade.

Assign histology code 8246/3 and assign code 9 for grade.

Since the primary is unknown and the type of NEC is not definitively stated, code neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS based on the diagnosis.

Code grade from primary tumor only. Assign grade code 9 when the primary site is unknown. See instruction 2.b. in the Grade Coding Instructions for 2014+.

SINQ 20170033 and SINQ 20160023 provide instructions for coding the grade/differentiation field. Using these SINQ questions to code histology could lead to errors.

 2017
20170019

MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: How should histology be coded for a mixed germ cell tumor that also includes choriocarcinoma now that non-seminomatous mixed germ cell tumors (9065) and seminomatous mixed germ cell tumors (9085) are collapsed for analysis? See Discussion.

The MP/H Rules (Other Sites Terms and Definitions, Table 2) currently lists a separate mixed germ cell tumor code (9101) for germ cell tumors with choriocarcinoma plus teratoma, seminoma or embryonal carcinoma. Is this separate mixed germ cell tumor code still to be used now that all mixed germ cell tumors (9065 and 9085) have been collapsed into code 9085 for analysis per SINQs 20160056 and 20110013? The current WHO Classification for testis tumors does not list code 9101, but also collapses all seminomatous and nonseminomatous mixed germ cell tumors of more than one histologic type under code 9085.

While WHO 4th Ed Tumors of Urinary and Male Genital System does not include 9101/3, this code has not been made obsolete. Follow the 2007 MP/H rules and code histology to 9101/3 per Other sites rule H16, Table 2.

 2017
20170075

MP/H Rules/Behavior--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted for a patient with a history of left breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) diagnosed in 2014 and bone lesions showing metastatic carcinoma consistent with a breast primary in 2017? See Discussion.

Patient was diagnosed with DCIS of the left breast in June 2014. The patient had a simple mastectomy with 2 axillary lymph nodes removed. The final diagnosis was intermediate to high grade ductal carcinoma in situ, predominantly micropapillary type, forming a 1.4 cm mass. No invasive carcinoma identified. Margins negative. In April 2017, the patient was found to have parietoccipital bone lesions, which were resected. The resulting diagnosis was metastatic carcinoma, morphologically consistent with breast primary " See Comment: The previous breast lesion is not available for review at the time of signout. However, the tumor is morphologically compatible with a breast primary.

SINQ 20110111 would not make this is new primary. However, it seems that rule M8 might apply. An invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days after diagnosis is a multiple primary. See Note 2: Abstract as multiple primaries even if the medical record/physician states it is recurrence or progression of disease.

Assuming there were no other breast or any other tumors for this patient, change the behavior code to /3 on the original abstract for the 2014 breast primary.

Similar to SINQ 20110111, there was likely a focus of invasion present in the original tumor that was not identified by the pathologist. The behavior code on the original abstract must be changed from a /2 to a /3 and the stage must be changed from in situ to localized.

The MP/H rules do not apply to metastases. Therefore, rule M8 cannot be used.

 2017
20170034

Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: Would you code a unilateral breast simple mastectomy with tissue expanders and AlloDerm or an acellular dermal matrix as Code 45, Reconstruction with Implant, or Code 46, Reconstruction with Combined Tissue and Implant? See Discussion.

Since acellular dermal matrix/AlloDerm comes from human tissue donors with cells removed and sterilized to promote regenesis and decrease rejection, is Alloderm coded as "Tissue' as it also "provides an additional layer of tissue between the skin and the implant?

Assign code 43 for a simple mastectomy with tissue expanders and acellular dermal matrix/AlloDerm. The tissue expander indicates preparation for reconstruction. The acellular dermal matrix/AlloDerm is not coded because, while they often accompany an implant procedure, they are not the principle element of reconstructive procedures. The principle elements would be tissue from the patient and/or prosthetics (e.g., gel implants).

 2017
20170008

MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: Is the code for invasive adenocarcinoma in a serrated adenoma 8213/3? The NAACCR Guidelines for ICD-O-3 Update Implementation, effective 1/1/14, provides new terms including 8213/0 for sessile serrated adenoma/sessile serrated polyp and 8213/3 for serrated adenocarcinoma. This would cause Site/Type and Histology overrides to be set. Coding 8210/3 would allow the case to be reported without overrides. See Discussion.

Pathology report 1/13/15, Histology - Transverse colon resection pathology = Invasive moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma. The invasive adenocarcinoma arises in a sessile serrated adenoma.

Assign 8213/3 to invasive adenocarcinoma arising in a sessile serrated adenoma. The instruction in SINQ 20120089 is still valid. The 2014 ICD-O-3 Update does not change this SINQ answer.

 2017
20170022

MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: What is the code for an embryonal tumor with multilayered rosettes. WHO shows the code as 9478/3, but this code is not available for use in the United States.

Assign ICD-O-3 code 9392/3 until code 9478/3 is implemented in 2018. Per our expert neuropathologist, embryonal tumor with multilayered rosettes was previously called ependymoblastoma.

 2017
20170033

Grade--Appendix: What is the code and term to use for the grade/differentiation field for well differentiated, Grade 2 neuroendocrine tumor (NET)? See Discussion.

Diagnosis: Fragmented appendix with: Goblet cell carcinoid tumor (typical goblet cell carcinoid): WELL DIFFERENTIATED neuroendocrine tumor; INTERMEDIATE GRADE (GRADE 2 NET). Size 3.5 cm according to surgical pathology report. Tumor infiltrates through appendiceal wall to subserosa. Tumor is present in what appears to be the wall of the appendix near the perforation site or in hemorrhagic tissue on the surface of the appendix. MAXIMUM MITOTIC RATE IS TWO (2) FIGURES PER 10 HIGH POWER fields (2/10hpf). (4/10 hpf according to report).

WD indicates a 3- grade system (code 1 for WD) Intermediate grade indicates a 3- grade system (code grade 3 for intermediate grade), Grade 2 indicates a 2- grade system (code 2 for grade 2). Please advise.

See SINQ 20160023 for NET grade coding instructions. Coding grade for NETs is slightly different from coding grade for other solid tumors.

Since this diagnosis includes "Well differentiated" and "Grade 2," assign grade code 2, the higher grade. According to our expert pathologist consultant, "intermediate" fits best with grade 2.

 2017
20170010

CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: What estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor (ER/PR) values should be coded in a case with two separate tumors (1 ductal, 1 lobular) diagnosed simultaneously in the same breast (single primary) with differing ER/PR values for each tumor? One is ER/PR positive; the other is ER/PR negative.

In cases where ER (or PR) is reported on more than one tumor specimen, record the highest value. If any sample is positive, record as positive.

Guidance on Collaborative Stage (CS) site-specific factors (SSFs) in the breast schema can be found in the SEER Registrar Staging Assistant (SEER*RSA): SSF1-Estrogen Receptor (ER) Assay and SSF2-Progesterone Receptor (PR) Assay.

The SEER* RSA breast schema is found at: https://staging.seer.cancer.gov/cs/schema/02.05.50/breast/?breadcrumbs=(~schema_list~)

 2017