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: 12/23/2025 14:18 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
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
20190016

Update to current manual/SS2018--Breast: Should Code 3 of the Summary Stage 2018 (SS2018) for Breast designate the intramammary and infraclavicular lymph nodes as being ipsilateral? Similarly, should Code 7 designate infraclavicular lymph nodes as contralateral/bilateral? Laterality (ipsilateral, contralateral/bilateral) is included for axillary and internal mammary nodes in the respective codes.

Based on your question, a review of the AJCC manual was done to clarify how these nodes would be coded. A review of Extent of Disease (EOD) Regional Nodes and EOD Mets was also done. That information is correct and in line with AJCC 8th edition. We apologize that SS2018 was not updated accordingly and thank you for bringing this issue to our attention.

Per AJCC, infraclavicular and intramammary nodes are ipsilateral for the N category. Contralateral or bilateral involvement are included in the M category.

The following will be applied to the planned 2020 update of the SS2018 manual.

Code 3

Ipsilateral will be added to Infraclavicular and Intramammary

Infraclavicular (subclavicular) (ipsilateral)

Intramammary (ipsilateral)

Code 7

The following will be added under Distant lymph nodes

Infraclavicular (subclavicular) (contralateral or bilateral)

Intramammary (contralateral or bilateral)

 2019
20190030

Summary Stage 2018/Extension--Prostate: Can imaging be used to code SEER Summary Stage 2018? MRI shows tumor involved the seminal vesicles and the patient did not have surgery. AJCC does not use imaging to clinically TNM stage a prostate case.

Note 5 was changed in Version 2.0.

Per Note 5 of the 2018 SEER Summary Stage Prostate chapter: Imaging is not used to determine the clinical extension. If a physician incorporates imaging findings into their evaluation (including the clinical T category), do not use this information.

This note was changed in Version 2.0 (2021 changes) to be in line with how AJCC stages; therefore, AJCC and Summary Stage agree.

 2019
20190023

First course of treatment/Radiation therapy--Kidney: Patient has a CT-guided biopsy of a right renal mass with procedure details under the Interventional Radiology Procedure Note stating "Gelfoam tract embolization." Is this particular embolization treatment?

Gelfoam tract embolization for a CT-guided renal biopsy is not treatment. It is a method to plug the biopsy track to reduce the risk of hemorrhage.

 2019
20190095

Reportability/Histology--Thymus: Is a thymoma a malignancy if described as having separate tumor nodules within peri-thymic adipose tissue? See Discussion.

Patient had a thymectomy including pericardial fat for a mediastinal mass found incidentally during lung screening. Final diagnosis is WHO B3 thymoma. Staging Summary lists transcapsular invasion: "Present, as separate tumor nodules within peri-thymic adipose tissue." Tumor extension is stated to be "Confined to thymus, including peri-thymic adipose tissue." The pathologist staged this resection as pT1a pNX with no mention of mets. Clinically, there are no noted metastatic sites and no further treatment is planned.

Report this case as a malignant thymoma. Our expert pathologist consultant reviewed this case and in his opinion, the "separate tumor nodules within peri-thymic adipose tissue" fit registry reporting criteria for separate tumor nodules making this a malignant thymoma.

 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
20190063

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Sarcoma: How is histology coded for a CIC gene rearrangement sarcoma? See Discussion.

According to the literature, CIC gene rearrangement sarcomas in young patients are soft tissue sarcomas with an aggressive clinical course and may have previously been grouped under the Ewing-like family of tumors or as undifferentiated round cell sarcomas. There is currently no guideline in the solid tumor rules for coding a CIC gene rearrangement sarcoma. However, coding the histology to 8800 (sarcoma, NOS) seems unlikely to capture the more aggressive nature of these tumors. Can a more specific histology be coded?

Code as undifferentiated round cell sarcoma (8803/3).

The CIC rearrangement exists as a distinct molecular and clinical subset of small round cell tumors, and though similar, is felt to be a distinct entity from Ewing sarcoma. According to WHO Classification of Soft Tissues and Bone, 4th Edition, CID-DUX4 is a recurrent gene fusion associated with pediatric round cell undifferentiated soft tissue sarcoma (USTS). Although the genes involved in the fusion are different from those in Ewing sarcoma, the CIC-DUX4 protein has been shown to upregulate genes of the ETS family of genes thus providing a molecular link between Ewing sarcoma and round cell USTS. In contrast, there are strong arguments to suggest that Ewing-like sarcomas represent a separate and distinct entity.

 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
20190022

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: Is histology code or the number of primaries assigned differently in SINQ 20180093 if the word "pattern' was omitted? See Discussion.

Regarding the answer to SINQ 20180093: This is a single primary; coded 8140/3 adenocarcinoma. In the biopsy and the two tumors found on lobectomy, the specific adenocarcinoma histologies are described as acinar predominant pattern, solid growth pattern and lepidic predominant pattern. You do not code a pattern, so rule M7 above applies and this is a single primary.

My question is based on Note 2 in Coding Multiple Histologies for lung cancers that says: Predominantly describes the greater amount of tumor. Predominant and majority are synonyms. Per the CAP protocol, the term predominant is acceptable for the following specific subtypes of adenocarcinoma. For these subtypes only, the word predominant is used to describe both the subtype and the grade of the tumor.

If the word "pattern' was omitted, you would abstract multiple primaries per the Lung Solid Tumor Rule M6 and code histology to adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant (8551/3) and adenocarcinoma, lepidic predominant (8250/3) per Rule H4 as the word "pattern' is not included in each histology.

 2019
20190096

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Colon: Is a colorectal anastomotic site recurrence reportable, that is, a second primary, per Rule M7, third bullet, if there is no mention of mucosa but the tumor is seen on colonoscopy? See Discussion.

Colon, Rectosigmoid, and Rectum Multiple Primary Rule M7 states, Abstract multiple primaries when a subsequent tumor arises at the anastomotic site AND the subsequent tumor arises in the mucosa.

We identified tumors at the anastomotic site of previous colon primaries with no mention of mucosa in any of the available documentation. Are there any other indicators that would imply a tumor arising in the mucosa, or do we need this specific statement to apply rule M7?

Example: Patient has a history of invasive ascending colon adenocarcinoma diagnosed in October 2017 status post hemicolectomy followed by adjuvant chemo. There is no documentation of disease until August 2019 colonoscopy which shows a mass in the ileocolic anastomosis. Biopsy of the anastomotic site is positive for adenocarcinoma consistent with recurrence of the patient's colonic adenocarcinoma. There is no mention of mucosa found on the pathology report.

Abstract a single primary using 2018 Colon Solid Tumor Rule M8 in the example provided as there is a subsequent tumor occurring less than 24 months in the anastomotic site, with the same histology and no mention of mucosa.

The new tumor would be a new primary when it meets any one of the criteria noted in M7. The tumor does not have to be stated to have arisen in the mucosa. M8 also has three options to determine if a single primary is present.

 2019