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: 02/18/2026 11:02 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20190079

Reportability/Histology--Pancreas: Is mucinous cystic neoplasm of pancreas reportable?

Non-invasive mucinous cystic neoplasm (MCN) of the pancreas with low or intermediate grade dysplasia is NOT reportable.

Non-invasive mucinous cystic neoplasm (MCN) of the pancreas with high grade dysplasia is reportable. For neoplasms of the pancreas, the term MCN with high grade dysplasia replaces the term mucinous cystadenocarcinoma, non-invasive.

 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
20190106

Tumor Size--Esophagus: Can information from the endoscopy procedure that implies a size of 3 cm for Tumor Size--Clinical be used for Esophagus? See Discussion.

1-28-2018 CT Scan: 2.4 cm mass

2-15-2018 Endoscopy: Mass was present 22 to 25 cm. Biopsies were taken with cold forceps for histology; biopsy positive.

For the case you describe, we would record the clinical tumor size stated on the CT report.

The priority order for clinical tumor size is as follows.

1. Biopsy or operative (surgical exploration) report

2. Imaging

3. Physical exam

We do not recommend coding tumor size based on an inferred tumor size from a description such as "Mass was present 22 to 25 cm." Look for an actual measurement of the mass, or a stated tumor size. Use text fields to record details.

 2019
20190038

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Breast: How is the histology coded and which H Rule applies for a single tumor with final diagnosis of invasive mammary carcinoma and College of American Pathologists (CAP) synoptic report states, Histologic type: Invasive cribriform carcinoma with no mention of a tumor percentage? See Discussion.

In the April 2019 Breast Solid Tumor Rules update, the Priority Order for Using Documentation to Identify Histology was changed, giving equal priority to the Final diagnosis / synoptic report as required by CAP (item 2B).

There are technically two histologies documented for the case above; a Not Otherwise Stated (NOS)/No Special Type (NST) (invasive mammary carcinoma, per final diagnosis text) and subtype/variant (invasive cribriform carcinoma, per CAP report). If we do not use the synoptic report with priority over the final diagnosis, Rule H14 indicates the histology would be the NOS histology (invasive mammary carcinoma) because the percentage of tumor is not given for the subtype. However, SINQ 20180045 states, In the CAP protocol, the term Histologic Type is a label where the histology that corresponds to the largest carcinoma is collected. According to the CAP protocol for invasive breast cancer, the histologic type corresponds to the largest carcinoma.

If the pathologist summarizes the findings in a synoptic report, should the specific Histologic Type identified have priority?

Based on the synoptic report findings, code cribriform carcinoma using Breast Solid Tumor Rule H12 which says to code the histology when only one histology is present. The histologic type describes one histology and does not describe the components of an NOS/NST with a subtype, in which case a different rule would apply.

The priority order for using documentation to identify histology gives equal weight to final diagnosis and synoptic report, secondary to addendum or comments. Use the more specific histology if either the final diagnosis or synoptic provides the additional information on the histology.

 2019
20190041

Reportability/Primary Site--Gastrointestinal (GI) Tract: Is a gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) with a single nodule in the small intestine (C17_) and a nodule in the stomach (C16_) reportable per the 2018 SEER Coding Manual reporting instructions for GIST due to the multiple foci or do the multiple foci need to be in the same organ to be reportable? See Discussion.

Example: Small intestine wedge resection with GIST, 1.8 cm in mid small intestine, single nodule. Stomach nodule biopsy: GIST, 0.3 cm. Pathology report comment section indicates the gastric GIST is not staged due to the small size and incidental nature.

Report the GIST in the small intestine. The 2018 SEER Manual says to report GIST when there are multiple foci and to code the primary site to the site where the malignancy originated. Use text fields to record the details, including the stomach nodule.

 2019
20190066

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Breast: How is the histology coded for a metastatic carcinoma, consistent with primary breast carcinoma, when no other pathology information is available? See Discussion.

The 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules Equivalent Terms and Definitions - Changes from 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules states: Mammary carcinoma is a synonym for carcinoma no special type (NST)/duct carcinoma not otherwise specified (NOS) 8500. It will no longer be coded as carcinoma NOS 8010. Should metastatic carcinomas of breast origin be 8500, or is code 8010 (carcinoma NOS) more applicable because histology coding from metastatic sites is not as reliable?

Code as 8500/3 as it is the only tissue available for this carcinoma associated with a breast primary. Breast carcinoma NST/NOS is now coded as 8500.

 2019
20190019

Solid Tumor Rules 2018/Histology--Brain and CNS: How is histology coded for a single meningioma tumor when the histology is a meningioma comprised of multiple specific subtypes/variants? See Discussion.

Example: Patient has a left cerebral meningioma that is meningothelial meningioma (9531) and two right-sided cerebral meningiomas: one that is transitional meningioma (9537) and the other that is meningioma, transitional and angiomatous, WHO Grade I. If the histology for the mixed tumor is 9534 (angiomatous meningioma), then there are three primaries. If the histology is 9537 (transitional meningioma), then there are two primaries.

Per Table 6, angiomatous meningioma is 9534/0 and transitional meningioma is 9537/0. There is no mixed histology coding rule, or mixed histology meningioma code. There is also no default rule that would instruct registrars to code the numerically higher ICD-O code or to default to a meningioma (NOS) histology code.

Code the histology for the meningioma, transitional and angiomatous, WHO Grade I to Meningioma, NOS (9530/0). Since a mixed meningioma ICD-O code has not been proposed by WHO, we consulted with our expert neuropathologist.

The other option is to follow back with the pathologist and code what they feel is the predominant type. A new histology rule for coding mixed meningiomas will be added in a future update of CNS rules.

 2019
20190053

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Brain and CNS: What is the histology code for a central nervous system (CNS) Ewing sarcoma family tumor with CIC alteration of the right parietal lobe? See Discussion.

Table 3 (Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtypes/Variants) lists Ewing sarcoma as a synonym for Peripheral primitive neuroectodermal tumor 9364. Presumably, this is to be used for the reportable malignant peripheral nerve tumors when diagnosed as pPNET or Ewing sarcoma. However, this patient has a type of central (or CNS) primitive neuroectodermal tumor (histology 9473). Table 3 does not list central primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET or CPNET) as a valid histology for CNS tumors.

While Table 3 does not list all the possible histologies for the CNS, it currently is not clear how one would arrive at the histology code for a CNS Ewing sarcoma family tumor with CIC alteration, as this is recognized as a new entity for primitive neuroectodermal tumors of the CNS (i.e., PNET, histology 9473) per multiple journal articles. Ewing sarcoma family tumors include both peripheral PNET and central PNET tumors, but to code this histology as a peripheral PNET (9364) in this case seems incorrect when the primary tumor is stated to be of central nervous system origin, not peripheral nervous system origin.

Code as 9364/3. WHO Classification of Tumors of the CNS, 4th edition, refers to Ewing sarcoma/peripheral primitive neuroectodermal tumor as a tumor of neuroectodermal origin involving the CNS either as a primary dural neoplasm or by direct extension from contiguous bone or soft tissues (such as skull, vertebra, or paraspinal soft tissue).

 2019
20190052

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple Primaries--Head & Neck: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient is diagnosed with right nasal cavity (C300) invasive nonkeratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (8072/3) in 2015 treated with radiation and excision, followed by a 2019 right nasal cavity (C300) invasive squamous cell carcinoma (NOS, 8070/3)? See Discussion.

Head and Neck Multiple Primary Rule M8 appears to be the first rule that applies to this case and instructs the user to abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in the appropriate site table (Tables 1-9) in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions. Table 1 (tumors of the nasal cavity) shows Non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma on different rows making the 2019 case a new primary. Is this correct?

Abstract two primaries using Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rule M8 when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in the appropriate site table, in this case, Table 1 Nasal Cavity and Paranasal Sinuses.

 2019
20190086

EOD 2018/EOD 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