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: 09/17/2025 12:41 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20180109

Date of diagnosis/Ambiguous terminology--Cervix Uteri: Is the date of diagnosis of a cervical pap smear done in December 2017, that states high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion with features suspicious for invasion, followed by a cervical biopsy in 2018 positive for squamous cell carcinoma, in 2017? Is the ambiguous term used in the cytology in 2017 (suspicious for invasion) to determine diagnosis as the SEER manual states to use the ambiguous cytology as the date of diagnosis if confirmed later.

Updated for cases diagnosed 2022 or later

For cases diagnosed in 2022 or later, see the instructions in the SEER manual under Reportability and Date of Diagnosis for ambiguous cytology.

 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
20180047

Reportability--Kidney: Is a hybrid oncocytic tumor reportable? See Discussion.

10/27/2017 partial nephrectomy final path diagnosis: renal oncocytic neoplasm, favor hybrid oncocytic tumor. Comment:

Do not report renal HTOC. According to our expert pathologist consultant, "the genetic studies seem to indicate that the chromosomal changes of chromophobe renal carcinoma are not found in the hybrid tumors."

 2018
20180103

Histology/Grade--Small intestine: For a 2017 diagnosis, is the grade/differentiation field coded 1 or 9 when the diagnosis is well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (NET) (carcinoid)? It seems as though the term well-differentiated defines type of neuroendocrine tumor so they can diagnosis the carcinoid. See Discussion.

5/15/17 Duodenal bulb, biopsy: Fragments of duodenal mucosa with well differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (carcinoid), extending to the edge of specimen and peptic duodenitis in the submitted tissue. No significant intraepithelial lymphocytosis.

Assign grade code 1 for well-differentiated NET (8240/3). Well-differentiated is synonymous with NET, grade 1, according to WHO Classification of Tumors of the Digestive System.

 2018
20180105

2018 Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the appropriate histology code for the case below in the Discussion section? Is there a difference between adenocarcinoma in situ (bronchioloalveolar carcinoma), non-mucinous type (8252/2) and adenocarcinoma in-situ, mucinous? See Discussion.

Procedure: Wedge, resection specimen, Laterality: Right, Tumor site: Right upper lobe, Tumor size: 1.0 cm in greatest dimension, Histologic type: Adenocarcinoma in-situ, mucinous, Histologic grade: N/A, Visceral pleura invasion: Not identified, Tumor extension: N/A, Margins: Uninvolved, Lymphocytosis.

Assign 8253/2 for adenocarcinoma in situ, mucinous. New codes were added in 2018 for mucinous adenocarcinoma in situ for lung cancer only as all cases were not invasive. Pathologist are discouraged from using the term BAC. In-situ lung tumors can now be identified as either mucinous or non-mucinous and the appropriate ICD-O code should be assigned based on diagnosis.

 2018
20180108

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: What is the correct histology of a lung mass with a CT-directed fine needle aspirate "positive for malignancy, favor squamous cell carcinoma. See Discussion.

Immunostain results of the malignant cells show strong staining with p63 and negative staining with TTF-1 and Napsin. Rare cells stain with CK7. Findings are most compatible with squamous cell carcinoma. The patient is treated as if he has squamous cell carcinoma. The new histology coding rules say you cannot use ambiguous terms which modify the histology to code the histology. So is this 8010/3?

Code histology to SCC.

The lung rules were updated 10/12/2018 to include clarification on using ambiguous terminology to code histology. See page 32.

Note 2: Histology described by ambiguous terminology is coded when a case is

* Clinically confirmed by a physician (attending, pathologist, oncologist, pulmonologist, etc.)

* Patient is treated for the histology described by an ambiguous term

Your case meets both of these criteria so code histology to SCC.

 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
20180083

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Bladder: How many primaries are abstracted and which M Rule applies when a patient is diagnosed with an invasive urothelial carcinoma tumor of the bladder, followed less than three years later by an invasive urothelial carcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma tumor of the bladder? See Discussion.

The Solid Tumor Rules indicate bladder tumors that are urothelial carcinoma (8120) and small cell carcinoma (8041) are separate primaries per Rule M13 (Abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in Table 2). These are distinctly different histologies and, presumably, one would want to capture the small cell carcinoma (or small cell carcinoma component) as this has a worse prognosis.

However, if a subsequent bladder tumor is composed of invasive urothelial carcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, the histology is coded as 8045/3 per Rule H4, but this is not abstracted as a multiple primary. The only M Rule that applies is Rule M18 (Abstract a single primary when tumors do not meet any of the above criteria). The mixed histology code 8045 is not included in Table 2, so none of the histology-based M Rules apply. Is the subsequent mixed invasive urothelial and small cell carcinoma tumor (8045/3) the same primary as a previously diagnosed invasive urothelial carcinoma (8120/3) when these tumors are diagnosed within three years?

Abstract two separate primaries using Solid Tumor Rules Urinary Sites Rule M13. While not stated in the urinary sites rules, these are separate histology codes in two different rows in Table 2 of the Rules. The initial histology is 8120 and the subsequent tumor is 8045 using Rule H4.

Adding 8045 to Table 2 will cause issues. Small cell neuroendocrine in the bladder is very rare, extremely aggressive, and usually has a component of urothelial carcinoma.

 2018
20180069

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Behavior--Brain and CNS: The Behavior coding instructions in the Non-Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) Equivalent Terms and Definitions section refer to Table 1 for help coding behavior when the other priority order instructions do not apply; however, the behavior cannot be reasonably determined using Table 1 alone for all WHO Grade I neoplasms. Should an additional default, such as the ICD-O-3 or Tables 5 and 6, be used to determine behavior? See Discussion.

Similar to an issue previously submitted SINQ 20180063, Table 1 (WHO Grades of Select CNS Neoplasms) in the Non-Malignant CNS Equivalent Terms and Definitions section states WHO Grade I tumors are always non-malignant. However, this does not mean that the tumors listed in Table 1 as WHO Grade I are always benign (/0). Some tumors listed with a WHO Grade I have a behavior of /1 (borderline) per the ICD-O-3 and/or Tables 5 and 6. The Behavior coding instructions do not currently indicate these are the appropriate sources to use when the pathologist and/or physician do not comment on the behavior of these tumors. In our area, pathologists do not explicitly state the behavior for these tumors; the pathologist only assigns the WHO Grade.

There is no way for us to know what behavior to assign WHO grade II tumors when the pathologist does not provide that information. Defaulting to either benign or malignant is incorrect. Please follow back with the pathologist to determine behavior.

The behavior must be non-malignant, meaning /0 or /1, or the tumor is a WHO Grade 1, to be reportable as non-malignant CNS tumor. Refer to Table Instructions under Table 1, WHO Grades of Select CNS Neoplasms that says to use non-malignant CNS rules for all WHO Grade 1 tumors and to use the appropriate rules for WHO Grade 2 tumors

Use ICD-O and all updates if not listed in Table 6 according to non-malignant CNS Histology Rule H3 (for single tumor) and Rule H8 (for multiple tumors) when only one histology is present.

 2018
20180056

Primary Site--Ovary: How should primary site be coded for a previously diagnosed ovarian cancer which is now being reclassified as fallopian tube? See Discussion.

There is a group of patients diagnosed within the past few years with ovarian cancers who are now enrolled in a clinical trial and are being screened as potential patients for a particular protocol. The screening for these particular cases is being done by a pathologist who has a particular interest in GYN pathology. As the pathologist is screening the cases, there are some which the pathologist is reclassifying as being fallopian tube primaries rather than ovarian primaries. This is apparently due to newly emerging findings and literature. The problem for me is that these cases have been entered into the registry as ovarian primaries, which was correct as of the time of the initial diagnosis. Should the abstracts remain as they were initially coded, since the diagnosis was ovarian cancer at the time they were diagnosed, or should these cases be updated to reflect the current pathologist's interpretation that these are fallopian tube primaries?

Do not change the primary site in this situation. Since the review was done for a clinical trial and the change was not officially made in the patient's medical record, the primary site remains ovary for the cancer registry. Add an explanatory note in a text field for future reference.

 2018