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: 02/21/2026 18:18 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20190072

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: What is the correct histology code for minimally invasive adenocarcinoma in the lung, 8140/3 or 8256/3? See Discussion.

For example, 9/12/18 left lung upper lobe lobectomy: 1.5 cm, 0.8 cm invasive component, lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma with acinar and lepidic patterns, G2, no visceral pleural invasion, no LVI, 0/14 LNS positive. An additional minimally invasive adenocarcinoma, 1 mm, was seen away from the main tumor. The correct coding of the minimally invasive adenocarcinoma will ultimately determine if we have one tumor (using rule M7) versus two primaries (using rule M6).

Updated answer: Code minimally invasive adenocarcinoma, NOS as 8140/3. This is a new term and code in the 2018 ICD-O-3 New Codes, Behaviors, and Terms-Updated 8/22/18 list. See Solid Tumor Lung Table 3, and Solid Tumor Lung rules H1 and H10.

 2019
20190047

Reportability/Liver: If on imaging, there is no statement of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) score but there is reference that a lesion is in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) 5 category, is hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) reportable based on the OPTN 5 classification? See Discussion.

SINQ 20160008 discusses the reportabilty and diagnosis date for liver primaries where imaging references the LI-RADS category as LR-5 or LR-5V. The 2018 SEER Coding and Staging Manual, Appendix E Reportable Example #16, demonstrates this concept. According to the LI-RADS categories a value of 5 is "definitely HCC" and is concordant with OPTN 5. Often we see only the OPTN categorization.

Report HCC based on the OPTN class of 5. OPTN class 5 indicates that a nodule meets radiologic criteria for HCC. Be sure to document in text fields.

 2019
20190003

Solid Tumor Rules (2018/2021)/Multiple Primaries--Brain and CNS:  How many primaries should be accessioned and what multiple primaries/histology rules apply to a meningioma of the spinal meninges and a meningioma of the cerebral meninges? See Discussion.

Example: Brain MRI shows a mass along underside of right tentorium extending to posterior incisura consistent with meningioma. Spinal MRI shows mass at C4-5 level consistent with meningioma. Resection of spinal meningioma shows final diagnosis of meningioma and College of American Pathologists (CAP) protocol summary indicates Histologic Type (WHO classification of tumors of the central nervous system): Meningioma, meningothelial. There is no resection of the cerebral meningioma planned. Is the CAP protocol used if it provides a further subtype for meningiomas? Per Solid Tumor Rules, the final diagnosis has priority over the CAP summary. The answer to this question does affect the number of primaries accessioned in this case.

Accession as multiple primaries using Rule M7 of the Solid Tumor Rules for Non-Malignant Central Nervous System that says to assign multiple primaries for cerebral meninges C700 AND spinal meninges C701. The Non-malignant CNS H coding section, Priority Order for using Documentation to Identify Histology" lists final DX and synoptic report as requried by CAP as being equal in priority. Use whichever report provides more specific information. See the General Instructions, page 13.

 2019
20190103

Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple primaries--Brain and CNS: What M rule applies to a clinically diagnosed right-sided parietal meningioma undergoing active surveillance, followed by a left-sided frontal anaplastic oligodendroglioma? See Discussion.

The patient has two, separate, non-contiguous tumors. One tumor is a benign meningioma and the other is a malignant oligodendroglioma.

The original plan was not to treat the asymptomatic meningioma. However, after worsening symptoms, imaging and resection proved a separate left frontal lobe malignant tumor.

Rule M5 is the only M Rule in the Malignant CNS Multiple Primary Rules, Multiple Tumors module that addresses separate non-malignant and malignant tumors. This rule provides only two criteria to follow when a malignant tumor follows a non-malignant tumor. The first criteria (for non-malignant tumor followed by malignant tumor) states:

--Patient had a resection of the non-malignant tumor (not the same tumor) OR

--It is unknown/not documented if the patient had a resection.

This patient did not have a resection of the original, separate, non-malignant tumor, but the treatment plan was known to not include a resection. Should Rule M5 also apply to cases where the patient never had treatment planned for the separate non-malignant tumor?

Apply 2018 Malignant CNS Solid Tumor Rule M5 and abstract multiple primaries when there are multiple CNS tumors, one of which is malignant /3 and the other is non-malignant /0 or /1. According to Note 3, a non-malignant CNS tumor and a malignant CNS tumor are always multiple primaries (timing and primary sites are irrelevant). Prepare two abstracts; one for the non-malignant and another for the malignant tumor.

 2019
20190054

Update to current manual/Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Brain and CNS: Table 6 (Non-Malignant CNS Equivalent Terms and Definitions) lists as a subtype/variant of craniopharyngioma 9350/1. This is not a valid histology per the ICD-O-3 or the 2018 ICD-O-3 Update Table. Is this actually supposed to read, ?

Adamantinomatous craniopharyngioma (9351/1) is a subtype of craniopharygioma. We will correct the Non-Malignant CNS Solid Tumor Rules in the next update.

 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
20190013

Laterality--Head and Neck: Were the topography codes C090 and C091 intentionally left off of the Sites for Which Laterality Codes Must Be Recorded table in the 2018 SEER Manual? The codes were also removed from Table 10 in the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules for Head and Neck but appear under coding instructions 1b. and 6b. in the manual.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. C090 and C091 were intentionally removed from the list of sites for which laterality must be coded. They should have also been removed from coding instructions 1b and 6b. We will make that correction in the next version of the manual.

 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
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
20190011

Reportability--Skin: Is an atypical smooth muscle cell proliferation of the skin reportable? See Discussion.

Example: Patient has left thigh skin excision with final diagnosis of atypical smooth muscle cell proliferation, inked peripheral margin is involved and inked deep margin is free of disease in the sections examined. See Comment.

Diagnosis comment states: The terminology regarding this lesion is controversial. Lesions with identical features are designated as leiomyosarcoma in the dermatopathology literature, whereas, the preferred classification in the soft tissue pathology is atypical intradermal smooth muscle neoplasm. Although the lesion appears predominantly dermal based, since the margin is involved, the lesion cannot be entirely evaluated, and therefore the final designation is deferred to the findings in the excisional specimen. (This slide was read by bone and soft tissue pathologist.)

There has been no excision of this tumor and, as a central registry, we have no access to the pathologist for clarification.

Is this skin case reportable based on the dermatopathology interpretation when further documentation is not available?

Since you do not have the option of checking with the pathologist and no further information is available, do not report this case. The diagnosis is atypical smooth muscle cell proliferation of the skin, which is not reportable.

Registrars with access to the pathologist should querry the pathologist for clarification in this situation.

 2019