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: 02/12/2026 20:02 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20190080

Update to current manual/Surgery of Primary Site/Surgery codes--Melanoma: Can the operative report be used to assess margins if there is no residual melanoma on the wide excision and no margins stated, or if distance is not stated on the pathology report when there is residual melanoma? See Discussion.

1) Is the operative report only used for margins when the wide excision states no residual disease and no margins are stated on path report? Or do you use the operative report too for margins when the wide excision has residual melanoma and margins are negative but distance is not stated on path report? Does it matter if there was residual melanoma on the wide excision or not as far as using the operative report for margins?

2) Do these rules only apply to melanoma cases or do they also apply to Merkel cell?

3) Did CoC and SEER both agree on this? Are they going to send out an update because this is not how I interpret what is in the STORE manual/SEER manual under the surgery codes. It might be good to send out an official update to the surgical coding rules if this is how we are to code now.

1. You may take margin information from the operative report if it is missing from the pathology report when assigning the surgery codes for skin.

  • Exception: Do not apply this to surgery codes 45-47 where specific instructions about microscopic confirmation are included

2. The rule applies to any skin malignancy for which the skin surgery codes apply.

3. SEER, CoC, NPCR, NCRA, NAACCR, and the Canadian registries participated in this decision. SEER is publishing this SINQ question for reference.

 2019
20190059

Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code and what H Rule applies for a diagnosis of well differentiated adenocarcinoma in situ (bronchioloalveolar carcinoma)? See Discussion.

There is no statement of mucinous or non-mucinous in this case, only adenocarcinoma in situ and an obsolete term bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC) which used to be code 8250. However 8250 is now lepidic adenocarcinoma, and does not match this diagnosis.

Although the Histology Rules do include a general note indicating that the preferred term for BAC is now mucinous adenocarcinoma 8253, it is not listed as a synonym in Table 3. As a result it is unclear how to apply this statement in accordance with the H rules.

The ICD-O Histology Updates table also includes Bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma, non-mucinous which seems to suggest that in order to apply histology code 8252 (non-mucinous) or 8253 (mucinous) one must also have a statement of mucinous or non-mucinous.

Code adenocarcinoma in situ as 8140/2 using the 2018 Lung Solid Tumor Rules, Rule H4 as this single histology is listed as a synonym for adenocarcinoma (8140) in Table 3 . Bronchiolalveolar carcinoma, a synonym for adenocarcinoma in situ, is an obsolete term according to WHO Classification of Tumors of the Lung, Pleura, Thymus and Heart, 4th edition; however, some pathologists add in the no longer preferred term to the diagnosis. When stated as non-mucinous adenocarcinoma in situ, code as 8250/2 for lung only (Rule H2) and mucinous adenocarcinoma in situ as 8253/2 (Rule H1).

Note: WHO published a corrected 4th Ed Lung blue book fixing the 8410 error.

 2019
20190034

Reportability/Histology--Penis: Is a diagnosis of undifferentiated penile intraepithelial neoplasia (PeIN) reportable for cases diagnosed in any year? See Discussion.

Example: An October 2017 glans penis biopsy final diagnosis was reported as: Undifferentiated (Warty-Basaloid) penile intraepithelial neoplasia.

In January 2018, an additional penile glans biopsy final diagnosis was reported as: At least squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in situ (HGPIN). Foreskin circumcision on the same pathology report shows SCC in situ.

It is unclear whether the term undifferentiated is synonymous with high-grade for the purposes of determining penile intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN/PEIN) reportability and diagnosis date.

Report undifferentiated penile intraepithelial neoplasia (PeIN) (8077/2). WHO Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs, 4th edition, lists basaloid (undifferentiated) penile intraepithelial neoplasia and warty (Bowenoid) penile intraepithelial neoplasia as a variants of PeIN.

 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
20190082

Primary site/Histology--Peritoneum: What is the correct primary site code for peritoneal mesothelioma in a female? When I use C482, it seems that the fields are all geared towards primary peritoneal carcinoma with FIGO staging, etc.

For mesothelioma, NOS (9050) and epithelioid mesothelioma (9052) of the peritoneum for females, assign C481, C482, or C488 as appropriate based on the site of origin in the medical documentation. The Primary Peritoneal Ca schema is assigned and you will need to complete the SSDIs for FIGO staging, CA-125 PreTx Interpretation, and Residual Tumor Volume Post Cytoreduction.

If the histology is 9051 or 9053 with primary site of C481, C482, or C488 for females, the Retroperitoneum schema is assigned. The only SSDI for this schema is Bone Invasion.

 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
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
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
20190027

EOD 2018/EOD Primary Tumor/Neoadjuvant 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
20190067

Reportability/Histology--Breast: Is a breast mastectomy showing mildly atypical cells within the nipple epidermis which are suspicious for Paget disease of the nipple a reportable malignancy? See Discussion.

Example: Left breast total mastectomy final diagnosis is incidental microscopic findings suspicious for early Paget disease of the nipple. The diagnosis comment states: The left breast mastectomy shows mildly atypical cells within the nipple epidermis which are suspicious for early Paget disease of the nipple. Additional sampling of the left breast was performed, and no evidence of atypical hyperplasia, in situ carcinoma, or invasive carcinoma within the left breast tissue was identified.

Would this case be non-reportable using rationale similar to an early/evolving melanoma per SINQ 20180029?

Code as 8540/3, Paget disease, based on the use of reportable ambiguous terminology (suspicious) listed in the 2018 SEER Coding Manual. In addition, Rule H8 of the 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules says to code Paget disease (8540/3) when the diagnosis is exactly Paget disease when a new tumor with no underlying tumor and the pathology documents invasive or unknown behavior.

When two ambiguous terms are used and one is on the reportable list (suspicious) and one is not (early), accept the reportable term and report the case. See #1.b.ii on page 12 in the SEER manual, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2018/SPCSM_2018_maindoc.pdf

 2019