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: 09/11/2025 18:13 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20190044

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Colon: Is the term phenotype equivalent to type, subtype, variant for the purpose of coding histology? See Discussion.

In our region, pathologists often describe histology using the term phenotype. However, the use of the term phenotype is not discussed in the Solid Tumor Manual.

Example: Final Diagnosis of a colon tumor is invasive adenocarcinoma with a mixed phenotype, and the Diagnosis Comment states: The majority of the disease is poorly differentiated/signet ring cell phenotype.

Would the histology be coded to 8490 (signet ring cell carcinoma), if the majority of the tumor is a more specific histology described by the term phenotype?

While variant, type, and subtype can be used interchangeably according to the Solid Tumor Rules, SINQ 20170058 states that the Multiple Primaries/Histology (now Solid Tumor) Rules do not include coding phenotype. Code as invasive adenocarcinoma NOS (8140).

 2019
20190057

Reportability/Histology--Penis: Are and (PeIN) equivalent to PeIN3 and thus reportable? See Discussion.

Appendix E1 of the 2018 SEER manual references a similar diagnosis as being reportable for vulva and vagina only. However, the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs (4th ed) does include high grade penile intraepithelial neoplasia as a synonym for 8077/2.

Penile intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III (PeIN III) and squamous cell carcinoma in situ of the penis are reportable. If possible, query the physicians as to whether "high grade penile intraepithelial lesion" or are synonymous with one of the reportable terms. If no further information can be obtained, report the case as C609 8077/2, and use text fields to document the details.

 2019
20190046

Tumor Size/Bladder: The 2018 SEER Coding and Staging Manual says to use imaging over physical exam as priority for determining tumor size. If a bladder tumor is 4 cm visualized on cystoscopy, and is 2.8 cm on CT scan, which should be used as the clinical size? Is cystoscopy (endoscopy) a clinical exam or imaging?

For the case described here, use the size from the CT scan. Physical exam includes what can be seen by a clinician either directly or through a scope. A tumor size obtained visually via cystoscopy is part of a physical exam. Therefore, the imaging (CT) tumor size is preferred. Use text fields to describe the details.

 2019
20190086

EOD 2018/Primary tumor--Melanoma: The code and level translations in the Note 4 of Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor for Melanoma Skin seem incorrect. Please advise.

* Code 000: In situ

* Code 100: Level I (should be level II) (< 0.75 mm Breslow's Depth)

* Code 200: Level II (should be level III) (0.76 mm to 1.50 mm Breslow's Depth)

* Code 300: Level III (should be level IV) (> 1.50 mm Breslow's Depth)

Please see the corrected levels below for the note. Note 4: If a Breslow's depth is given in the pathology report and there is no other indication of involvement, the following guidelines may be used (Note: If a physician documents a different Clark's Level than provided by these guidelines, go with the physician's Clark Level)

Code 000: Level I (In situ)

Code 100: Level II (< 0.75 mm Breslow's Depth)

Code 200: Level III (0.76 mm to 1.50 mm Breslow's Depth)

Code 300: Level IV (> 1.50 mm Breslow's Depth)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

 2019
20190037

Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be abstracted for simultaneously diagnosed non-contiguous invasive duct carcinoma and mucinous carcinoma? Does rule M12 apply since the two histologies are on different rows of Table 3 of the Breast Solid Tumor Rules? See Discussion.

Core biopsy of left breast at 2:00: Invasive ductal carcinoma, Nottingham score 6/9.

Core biopsy of left breast at 4:00: Invasive mucinous carcinoma (variant of ductal carcinoma), Nottingham score 5/9.

Post neo-adjuvant mastectomy: Main (largest tumor): Invasive ductal carcinoma, upper outer quadrant grade 2. Secondary tumor: mucinous carcinoma, grade 1 at 4:00.

Abstract multiple primaries when separate, non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in Table 3 of the Breast Solid Tumor Rules. Use Rule M14 as each row in the table reflects a distinctly different histology, in this case, invasive ductal carcinoma (8500) and mucinous carcinoma (8480).

 2019
20190049

Lymph nodes/Melanoma: Is a single axillary lymph node regional or distant for a patient diagnosed in 2018 with metastatic melanoma to the brain found via imaging. The staging procedure was an single axillary lymph node excision that was positive for metastatic melanoma. The exact site of the primary was never determined; the primary site is coded to C449. See Discussion.

The patient was diagnosed in 2018 with met melanoma to the brain found via imaging. The staging procedure was a single axillary lymph node excision which was positive for metastatic melanoma. The exact site of the primary was never determined and the site code is C449. Is the axillary lymph node regional or distant? This affects how I code regional lymph nodes positive, regional lymph nodes examined, and scope of regional lymph node surgery or surgical procedure other site. Similar question was asked in the past (question # 20091101) but I have not found this question restated since the 2018 changes and just want to verify this is still what we are to do.

Lymph node mets from a melanoma of unknown primary site are presumed to be regional if the lymph node mets are confined to one area, as they are in this case. We are assuming there are no previous melanoma diagnoses for this patient. The workup should include examination of the skin areas that drain to the axillary area.

 2019
20190027

Extent of Disease 2018/Primary tumor/Neoadjuant treatment: If there is no clinical information available and all that is available is the post-neoadjuvant information, is it better to code EOD unknown (999) or use the post-neoadjuvant information to code EOD? See Discussion.

The Extent of Disease (EOD) Manual states: Neoadjuvant (preoperative) therapy: If the patient receives neoadjuvant (preoperative) systemic therapy (chemotherapy, immunotherapy) or radiation therapy, code the clinical information if that is the farthest extension documented. If the post-neoadjuvant surgery shows more extensive disease, code the extension based on the post-neoadjuvant information.

Code EOD Primary Tumor using the post neoadjuvant information for this case. Since the only information you have is the post neoadjuvant, code that. EOD combines clinical and pathological information.

 2019
20190094

Reportability/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Skin: Is elephantiasis nostras verrucosa (ENV) reportable as a lymphoma? See Discussion.

The autopsy report indicated a diagnosis of: Skin: Hyperkeratosis and pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia as well as reactive angioendotheliomatosis indicating Elephantiasis Nostras Verrucosa.

Elephantiasis nostras verrucosa (ENV) is not reportable. ENV is a rare form of chronic lymphedema caused by any number of conditions including neoplasms, trauma, radiation treatment, congestive heart failure, obesity, hypothyroidism, chronic venous stasis, and parasitic infection.

 2019
20190083

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Prostate: How many primaries should be reported when metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate is diagnosed at the same time as adenocarcinoma of the prostate? See Discussion.

Patient has biopsy of prostate 12/28/2018 showing Gleason 5+5 adenocarcinoma. Liver biopsy on same date is metastatic small cell carcinoma consistent with prostate primary. Oncology consult states that liver biopsy is likely neuroendocrine conversion from prostate carcinoma. Patient also has bone metastasis and receives radiation, Lupron, Casodex, and chemotherapy of carboplatin and etopiside.

Per Solid Tumor Rules, we code histology from primary site over a metastatic site. Thus, the small cell carcinoma, which appears to be the focus of the chemotherapy is lost. Is it correct to code this as a single primary with an adenocarcinoma histology?

Both SINQ 20130221 and 20180088 instruct us to abstract multiple primaries when patient develops a metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate after being previously diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the prostate.

Accession two primaries, adenocarcinoma [8140/3] of the prostate [C619] and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma [8041/3] of the prostate [C619] per Rule M17 of the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules 2018, as these are different histologies with different histology codes at the second number.

Adenocarcinoma of prostate often manifests as a small cell carcinoma following treatment or as a progression of disease. It is important to capture these tumors as new primaries.

 2019
20190005

Primary Site--Bladder: Does instruction #4 in the Urinary Sites Solid Tumor Rules Instructions for Coding Primary Site apply to a mix of in situ and invasive urothelial tumors?

Instruction #4: Code Urinary System NOS C689 when there are multiple non-contiguous tumors in multiple organs within the urinary system.

See Discussion.

Example: Patient has multiple biopsies with final diagnosis of in situ papillary urothelial carcinoma in the prostatic urethra and invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma in the bladder.

How should primary site be coded in this type of mixed in situ and invasive situation?

Code Urinary System NOS C689 for this case since there are two separate urinary sites involved. Apply instruction #4 when there is a mix of in situ and invasive urothelial tumors.

 2019