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 20:29 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
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
20180037

Date of Diagnosis--Colon: If a patient has a positive Cologuard test, is the date of diagnosis the date of the cologuard test or the date of the biopsy?

Do not use the date of a positive Cologuard test as the date of diagnosis.

 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
20180009

Reportability--Head & Neck: Is dentinoameloblastoma reportable, and if so, what is the correct histology code? See Discussion.

Mixed odontogenic tumor consistent with dentinoameloblastoma, 9.5 cm, See Note: Tumor involves maxillary bone including hard palate, alveolar ridges, nasal cavities and maxillary sinuses bilaterally and buccal soft tissue. Lymphovascular invasion not identified. Perineural invasion not identified. Margins: Tumor involves right posterior bone (alveolar) margin. All other margins negative. Note: This is a rare hybrid tumor showing features of ameloblastoma producing pre-dentin/osteodentin matrix. Submucosal tumor is seen in the nasal cavities and palate. A congo red stain shows that the acellular dentin-like matrix fluoresces similar to collagen after polarization. Immunohistochemistry shows that the tumor cells are diffusely and strongly positive for p63, focally positive for CK19, and negative for CK5/6, SOX10, S100 and calretinin.

Dentinoameloblastoma is not reportable. It is a variant of ameloblastoma which produces dentin and/or osteoid. It is benign. It can extend locally in a rather aggressive fashion, but is not given a malignant designation unless it metastasizes.

 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
20180001

Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Small intestine: Is this case reportable? Widely metastatic gastrointestinal stomal tumor (GIST) was diagnosed at an out-of-state facility in 2017 and referred back to a hospital in our state for chemotherapy where there is a history of a small bowel resection of GIST of uncertain malignant potential (8936/1) doneat the hospital in 2003. If so, is the diagnosis date 2003 or 2017? See Discussion.

The hospital registrar reports that the case was identified at the hospital because of the referral for chemotherapy for the metastatic GIST. The records from the out-of-state hospital mentioned a history of a small bowel resection in 2003 for a borderline tumor. The registrar went back through the hospital's old records and found the surgery was done for GIST of low malignant potential at her facility. The question is whether to report the case or not, and if reported, is 2003 the diagnosis date.

The rules say to change the behavior and backdate the diagnosiswhen a tumor is presumed benign and islater diagnosed as malignant. Another problem for this case is that the out-of-state hospital did not review the slides from the 2003 surgery.

Report the case with a diagnosis date of 2017. The 2003 diagnosis was not reviewed, and there are no physician statements that cancer was present in 2003, or that the metastases are attributable to the 2003 diagnosis. Document the details of the case in text fields.

 2018
20180022

Reportability/Histology: Is a focal high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL/moderate to severe dysplasia/VIN II-III) in the vulva reportable for cases diagnosed in 2018? See discussion.

Since high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HGSIL) is reportable for the vulva in 2018 (per SINQ 20130185) but VIN II-III is not reportable, we need to clarify this reporting format seen in our area.

Report when stated to be high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion of the vulva. The 2018 SEER Manual says to assign 8077/2. HGSIL is a synonym for squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III for vulva and vagina only.

 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
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
20180110

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code of a 2018 lung case whose pathology states adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant?

The Solid Tumor Rules for Lung rule H4 applies. Per Table 3, page 12, third column on adenocarcinoma row, adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant is coded to 8551/3.

 2018