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: 03/01/2026 15:02 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
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
20180023

Reportability/Behavior: Is myxoinflammatory fibroblastic sarcoma (MIFS) reportable for 2018? This histology is on the 2018 ICD-O-3 histology update list with a behavior code of /1. See discussion.

This will be a tough one for registrars to recognize as non-reportable since the terminology contains sarcoma, so we just want to double check.

Myxoinflammatory fibroblastic sarcoma (MIFS) (C49._), 8811/1, is not reportable for 2018 based on the 2018 ICD-O-3 New Codes, Behaviors, and Terms list. This is a new histology/behavior not previously listed in ICD-O-3. According to the WHO 4th Ed Tumors of Soft Tissue & Bone, this histology has been given a benign (/1) behavior; however, if the pathologist and/or physician state the tumor is malignant or metastatic, report the case and assign behavior code /3.

 2018
20180002

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: Is a renal pelvis diagnosed 5/2016 a separate primary when the first invasive bladder was 12/2011? Per rule M7, the 5/2016 renal pelvis is more than 3 years later. Does Multiple Primary/Histology (MP/H) rule M7 refer back to the original diagnosis date or to the last occurrence? See Discussion.

12/30/11 Bladder Biopsy: Diffuse carcinoma in situ of bladder, urothelial cancer at trigone (Stage T1)

1/30/2012 Transurethral resection of the bladder was non-papillary, urothelial carcinoma, focal invasion of lamina propria, staged T1

11/10/14, 9/28/15, 9/26/16, 10/19/17 all had positive bladder cytology of urothelial carcinoma

5/16/16 Left renal pelvis aspirate: positive for malignant cells, urothelial carcinoma

9/26/16 Left renal pelvis aspirate: positive for malignant cells, urothelial carcinoma

10/18/16-11/7/16 Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) x3 administered into the renal collecting system via ureteral catheter

For cases diagnosed prior to 2018

This case is a single primary. This patient has not had a disease-free interval as demonstrated by the positive cytologies from 2014 through 2017. The MP/H rules cannot be applied in this case.

To answer your question about the timing of rule M7, please see slide 6 in the Beyond the Basics MP/H advanced training, General Instructions, https://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/training_adv/SEER_MPH_Gen_Instruc_06152007.pdf

 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
20180010

Diagnostic confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is Diagnostic Confirmation coded as 5 (positive laboratory test/ marker study) or code 8 (clinical diagnosis only) for a case that has a positive JAK2 mutation, and based on the results of the JAK2, the physician diagnosed the patient with polycythemia vera? There were no blood smears or bone marrow biopsies done.

Assign diagnostic confirmation code 5 for a positive laboratory test/marker study. A note was added to the Hematopoietic manual to state that code 5 now includes cases with no histological confirmation but there is positive immunophenotyping or genetic studies.

 2018
20180006

MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Should encapsulated papillary carcinoma of the breast with a separate focus of ductal carcinoma in situ be coded as 8050/2 (papillary carcinoma) and staged as in situ? See Discussion.

Pathology--Right breast, lumpectomy with needle localization: Encapsulated papillary carcinoma of the breast. A separate focus of ductal carcinoma in situ is present. Sentinel lymph node, right breast, biopsy: One lymph node, negative for malignancy. No metastatic carcinoma is seen on slides stained with immunostain for cytokeratin (AE1/AE3). Specimen laterality: Right. Tumor size: 1.2 cm. Histologic type: Encapsulated papillary carcinoma. Nuclear grade: Grade 1 (low). Mitotic rate: Score 1. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): DCIS is present. Estimated size (extent) of DCIS: 3 mm. Architectural patterns: Cribriform and papillary. Nuclear grade: grade 1 (low). Necrosis: Not identified. Margins: Margins uninvolved by encapsulated papillary carcinoma. Distance from closest margin: 8 mm, superior Margins uninvolved by DCIS. Distance from closest margin: 11 mm, superior Lymph nodes: Total number of lymph nodes examined (sentinel and nonsentinel): 1. Number of sentinel lymph nodes examined: 1. Number of lymph nodes with tumor cells: 0. Pathologic staging: Primary tumor: See comment. Regional lymph nodes: pN0(i-). Comment: In the WHO Classification of Tumours of the Breast (2012), it is stated that "there is no universal agreement on how to stage encapsulated papillary carcinomas. In the absence of conventional invasive carcinoma, the consensus of the WHO Working Group was that such lesions should be staged and managed as Tis disease."

For cases diagnosed prior to 2018

Code as encapsulated papillary carcinoma, 8504/3; this is a synonym for intracystic carcinoma (WHO Classification of Tumors of the Breast). Stage this case as invasive.

 2018
20180095

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: How is histology coded when the term "predominant" is used to describe solid adenocarcinoma, acinar adenocarcinoma, etc.? Pathology reports often say "See Synoptic" (also known as the College of American Pathologists (CAP) protocol) included in the Final Diagnosis rather than including all the detail. Based upon the new Solid Tumor Rules for lung, predominant/predominantly is no longer a subtype/variant and should not be coded unless there is a specific code/subtype-variant for the NOS in Table 3, e.g., adenocarcinoma, lepidic predominant. See Discussion.

Examples

Example #1: CAP histology type: Adenocarcinoma, solid predominant, Final diagnosis states that Adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated, solid predominant (80%) and cribriform (20%) subtype (see lung carcinoma synoptic report)

Example #2: CAP histology type : Invasive adenocarcinoma, solid predominant, Other Subtypes Present (specify subtype(s), may also include percentages): acinar (45%) and micropapillary (5%) Final diagnosis : adenocarcinoma of the lung, please see Synoptic Report

Example #3: CAP histology type: Adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant , Adenocarcinoma, solid predominant Final diagnosis: Adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated, solid predominant (60%), papillary (30%) and acinar (10%) subtype (see lung carcinoma synoptic report)

The lung H rules and tables have been updated to include histologies that CAP identifies using the term "predominant" in the diagnosis. Example: Code adenocarcinoma, lepidic predominant, to 8250/3 rather than 8140/3. When the final pathology diagnosis includes more than one "predominant" adenocarcinoma subtype such as acinar, solid, or lepidic, then code the type with the greatest percentage according to Lung Solid Tumor Rule H7.

 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
20180104

Reportability--Ambiguous terminology: Are the following terms reportable: almost certainly and until proven otherwise? See Discussion.

Example 1: Physician states patient has an almost certain melanoma. Due to the patient's age, there is no plan to for any treatment or further workup. Almost certain is not listed as a reportable phrase, so typically we would not accession this case.

Example 2: Imaging states a diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma until proven otherwise. No additional workup is available at this facility. This terminology is also not seen on the ambiguous reportable terminology list but we are seeing it more often and wanted confirmation.

Use the ambiguous terminology list as a last resort. Consult with the physician and search for further information to assist with the decision. If no further information can be obtained, use the ambiguous terms list to decide; in this case, the terms are not on the list and these examples would not be reportable.

 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