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: 07/08/2025 05:22 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20180057

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Bladder: Which Solid Tumor H Rule applies when the patient has a single tumor removed by transurethral resection of bladder tumor and the final diagnosis is: Carcinoma of the bladder with the following features: Histologic type: Urothelial carcinoma? See Discussion.

Instruction number 1 under the Coding Multiple Histologies instructions states to code histology when the histology is described as subtype, type or variant. The general rules do indicate we can code the histology identified as type, but when applying the H Rules, it seems an argument could be made for either H1 or H3. H1 applies if you ignore the diagnosis of carcinoma and only code the histologic type: urothelial carcinoma. However, the rules do seem to imply that you take all histologies into account (e.g., code the subtype/variant when there is a not otherwise specified (NOS) and single subtype/variant). Following this logic, Rule H3 seems to be the only rule that fits, and one would code the subtype/variant urothelial carcinoma when the diagnosis is carcinoma NOS, histologic type: urothelial carcinoma.

The problem is that urothelial carcinoma is not a subtype/variant of carcinoma (NOS) per Table 2. The entry for Carcinoma NOS in Table 2 states, Subtypes of carcinoma NOS include adenocarcinoma and all subtypes/variants of adenocarcinoma. To some, urothelial carcinoma is a more specific type of carcinoma; however, urothelial carcinoma is not also listed as a subtype of carcinoma or of adenocarcinoma; only adenocarcinoma is categorized as a subtype of carcinoma. Consistently applying the rules becomes an issue when rules are interpreted in different ways. Should this Table be amended to include urothelial carcinoma as a subtype/variant of carcinoma NOS with the same caveat given to adenocarcinoma in Table 2?

Code the most specific histology or subtype/variant. Urothelial carcinoma is more specific than carcinoma. See instruction #1 on page 29 of the April 2019 update.

 2018
20180090

Reportability--Ovary: Is an ovarian serous borderline tumor with microinvasion with serous tumor aggregates (3 mm in greatest dimension) in 2 of 10 pelvic lymph nodes reportable? See Discussion.

SINQ 20170043 is a similar question about an ovarian mucinous borderline tumor with microinvasion, but the answer seems to be specifically referencing mucinous tumors only. It is unclear if that SINQ could be applied to this case. In addition, we were not sure how to interpret the nodal involvement. The physician assessment after surgery was low grade serous carcinoma, chemo not recommended and letrozole started.

Ovarian serous borderline tumor with node implants is not reportable; it is a borderline neoplasm. However, if the oncologist believes he or she is dealing with a low grade serous carcinoma rather than a borderline tumor, this case is reportable. We recommend that you determine whether the diagnosis of low grade serous carcinoma, chemotherapy not recommended, is based on the pathological findings or on something else before reporting this case.

 2018
20180065

Immunotherapy: Is immunotherapy ever palliative treatment according to any oncologists or SEER?

Any treatment that destroys or modifies cancer tissue should be recorded as the appropriate type of treatment -- chemo, immuno, etc. Even if immunotherapy is given for symptoms/palliative treatment, it is likely to kill off tumor cells.

 2018
20180097

Reportability/Histology--Liver: Are primary hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasm and primary hepatic neuroendocrine tumor (PHNET) reportable? What are the specific histology codes?

Primary hepatic neuroendocrine tumor (PHNET) is reportable as are other digestive system NETs. There is no specific histology code for PHNET. We suggest you assign 8240/3. Use text fields to document the details.

Unless you can obtain clarification, do not report primary hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasm with no further information. If this term is being used as a synonym for PHNET, document this in the registry's policies and procedures, and report these cases.

 2018
20180019

Marital Status: Is Marital Status always a self-reported status? See Discussion.

The SEER Manual states that Marriage is self-reported for the instruction in code 2, but it does not indicate if all other marital statuses are self-reported.

Examples: How is Marital Status reported for the following situations?

1. Patient with multiple tumors in the database, for the first tumor marital status is reported as married (code 2), for the subsequent tumor, marital status is reported as single (code 1).

2. Patient self- reports as single, but also has children.

3. Patient states they are in common law marriage, but our state is not a common law marriage state.

Marital Status is self-reported because the information is recorded in the medical record based on information obtained from the patient. Use text fields to document relevant information.

Examples

1. Assign code 2 for the first tumor and assign code 1 for the subsequent tumor unless the available information indicates the patient is divorced at the time of the subsequent tumor diagnosis. Patient may self-report single after a divorce. Assign code 4 in that situation.

The code assigned for marital status reflects the patient's marital status at the time of diagnosis for the tumor being abstracted. It is possible that marital status may be different for each tumor if the patient has multiple tumors.

2. If marital status is stated to be single, assign code 1.

3. If marital status is stated to be common law marriage, assign code 2.

Common Law Marriage is defined as a couple living together for a period of time and declaring themselves as married to friends, family, and the community, having never gone through a formal ceremony or obtained a marriage license.

 2018
20180064

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Recurrence--Breast: Does any recurrence within the multiple primaries-stated timeframe count, not those just in the primary site? See Discussion.

A patient has a left breast cancer diagnosed in 2011; then has a "recurrence" in her lymph nodes in 2017. In 2018, she has a new left breast mass that is the same histology and behavior as the 2011 cancer. Based on the 2017 "recurrence" in the lymph nodes, this is not a new breast primary, is that correct?

This is a single primary using 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rule M11. Rule M8 does not apply because the patient was not clinically disease free for 5 years. We are interpreting the 2017 diagnosis as lymph node metastasis from the 2011 breast cancer diagnosis.

 2018
20180014

Reportability/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumor of the cerebrum reportable, and if so, is the histology coded as 9492/0? See Discussion.

Patient diagnosed with multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumor of the cerebrum. My research shows: Multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumor of the cerebrum is a recently reported benign, mixed glial neuronal lesion that is included in the 2016 updated World Health Organization classification of brain neoplasms as a unique cytoarchitectural pattern of gangliocytoma. There is no code in ICD-O-3 for it, so do I report it and use 9492/0 or not ?

Do not report multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumor of the cerebrum. At this time, WHO is undecided about whether this is a neoplastic or a hamartomatous/malformative process. If WHO makes a determination that this is a neoplastic process, we will update reportability instructions and ICD-O-3 guidelines for registrars.

 2018
20180089

Reportability--Appendix: Is disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis (DPAM) reportable when it is being referred to as if the primary tumor is a low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN)? See Discussion.

Example 1: 8/23/2017 debulking path diagnosis of low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) with involvement of intrapelvic mucin, left ovarian mass, uterine serosa and pelvic tumor, consistent with disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis, that may also be called low-grade mucinous carcinoma peritonei. 8/8/2018 resection of sigmoid and rectum, path diagnosis of peri-colorectal fibroadipose issue with low-grade mucinous carcinoma compatible with the prior diagnosis of pseumomyxoma peritonei with low-grade mucinous carcinoma histology.

Example 2: Path diagnosis of low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm in association with low grade mucinous carcinoma peritonei involving the serosa of the small intestine and mesentery. Also, there is involvement of serosal lined soft tissue of peritoneum, omentum, stomach, falciform ligament, gallbladder, diaphragm and spleen.

Some pathologists in our area are referring to DPAM as mucinous carcinoma peritonei, which is causing confusion because the term carcinoma is being used. One would assume that because the pseudomyxoma peritonei/underlying tumor itself is low-grade (LAMN), then the case is not reportable, but we would like clarification.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2022

Disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis (DPAM) is not reportable when the primary tumor is a low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN).

The term disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis (DPAM) is discouraged by the WHO Digestive System monograph (page 123, section on pseudomyxoma peritonei (mucinous carcinoma peritonei)), since it does not clarify whether the process is low grade or high grade carcinoma. When used, the term should be referring back to the histology of the defining process and in both of these examples this appears to be LAMN, and therefore not reportable. The only exception to this might be if the peritoneal implants were invasive; that is, they contained adenocarcinoma invading into the underlying peritoneum, bowel serosa, etc., rather than simply being present within the surface mucinous material. The pathologist would make this clear if this was, in fact, believed to be invasive carcinoma.

 2018
20180029

Reportability--Skin: Is early/evolving lentigo maligna reportable?

As of 01/01/2021, early or evolving melanoma in situ, or any other early or evolving melanoma, is reportable.

 2018
20180077

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Head & Neck: How is histology coded for a p16-positive squamous cell carcinoma of the base of tongue? Is p16-positive squamous cell carcinoma equivalent to a diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma human papilloma virus (HPV)-positive (8085)? See Discussion.

Table 6 (Tumors of the Oropharynx, Base of Tongue, Tonsils, Adenoids) in the Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions lists both squamous cell carcinoma HPV-positive and squamous cell carcinoma HPV-negative as subtypes/variants of squamous cell carcinoma (the NOS histology, 8070). Squamous cell carcinoma HPV-positive and squamous cell carcinoma HPV-negative are also listed in the 2018 ICD-O-3 update table.

Previous clarification from the standard setters regarding the 2018 ICD-O-3 Update table indicated that histology codes 8085 and 8086 (HPV-positive and HPV-negative squamous cell carcinoma, respectively) included p16+ and p16- squamous cell carcinoma, respectively. Presumably, this clarification was made because p16 is a surrogate marker for HPV, and capturing whether a tumor is HPV-related or not has implications for staging for 2018 and later diagnoses. However, this clarification was not added to the 2018 ICD-O-3 Update table via errata, nor do the Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions or Histology Coding Rules address this.

Is a diagnosis of p16-positive squamous cell carcinoma equivalent to a diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma HPV-positive (8085)? If so, will this clarification be added to the Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules?

HPV-positive is not equivalent to HPV-mediated (p16+). According to the 2018 SEER Manual, HPV-type 16 refers to virus type and is different from p16 overexpression (p16+). HPV status is determined by tests designed to detect viral DNA or RNA. Tests based on ISH, PCR, RT-PCR technologies detect the viral DNA or RNA; whereas, the test for p16 expression, a surrogate marker for HPV, is IHC. HPV testing must be positive by viral detection tests in order to code histology as 8085.

 2018