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: 07/12/2025 03:01 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20190092

First course Treatment/Lymph Nodes: When a Sentinel Lymph Node (SLN) biopsy ONLY is performed and SLNs are negative, are the SLNs included still counted in Regional Nodes (RNs) Examined and RNs Positive, or are the fields filled in: RLN Examined: 00 (No nodes examined) RLN Positive: 98 (No nodes examined) Date RLN Dissection: 00/00/0000 (No RLN dissection performed) or are the SLN included in the RLN Examined/Positive field but the Date RLN Dissection is 00/00/0000? See Discussion.

According to the 2018 SEER Manual, Sentinel Lymph Nodes (SLNs) Examined and SLNs Positive are included in Regional Nodes (RNs) Examined and RNs Positive when both a sentinel node biopsy procedure and a subsequent dissection procedure are performed or a sentinel node biopsy procedure is performed during the same procedure as the regional node dissection.

If a SLN biopsy is performed but no RLN dissection is performed, assign as follows.

Date of Regional Lymph Node Dissection: Leave blank as this field records the date non-sentinel regional node dissection was performed.

Date of Regional Lymph Node Dissection Flag: Assign code 11 (Not applicable: No proper value is applicable in this context (for example, no regional lymph node dissection was performed; autopsy only cases).

Regional Nodes Examined: Indicate the number of SLNs examined as this is cumulative from all procedures that remove lymph nodes through the completion of surgeries in the first course of treatment.

Regional Nodes Positive: Indicate the number of SLNs positive as this is cumulative from all procedures that remove lymph nodes through the completion of surgeries in the first course of treatment.

 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
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
20190048

Reportability/Histology--Skin: Is malignant hidroacanthoma simplex of the scalp reportable? If so, what is the histology?

Malignant hidroacanthoma simplex of the scalp is reportable. Malignant hidroacanthoma simplex is a synonym for porocarcinoma, 8409/3.

 2019
20190050

Reportability/Melanoma: Is evolving melanoma reportable with a Clark's level and Breslow's thickness are cited in the pathology report? See Discussion.

How do we interpret the reportability of the following: The histological and immunohistochemical findings are most consistent with an early-evolving malignant melanoma, superficial spreading type, with Clark's level II and maximal Breslow thickness 0.33 mm, arising in association with an atypical nevus. Since a Clark's level and Breslow's thickness are included, is this reportable? Is this really an evolving melanoma?

As of 01/01/2021, early or evolving melanoma in situ, or any other early or evolving melanoma, is reportable.

 2019
20190017

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: The term indolent systemic mastocytosis is listed in the 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology Update table with borderline behavior (9741/1). However, smoldering systemic mastocytosis is listed in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Database (Heme DB) as an alternate name for histology 9741/3. Are smoldering systemic mastocytosis and indolent systemic mastocytosis synonymous? If so, should smoldering systemic mastocytosis also be removed from the Heme DB alternate names listing? See Discussion.

In addition to the issue mentioned above, there is a SINQ answer that conflicts with the 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology Update table. SINQ 20130134 indicates indolent systemic mastocytosis is reportable for cases diagnosed 2010 and forward. There is no date restriction indicating the SINQ note applies only for cases diagnosed 2010-2017. Since indolent systemic mastocytosis was changed to borderline (9741/1) for diagnosis year 2018+, should the diagnosis year range be updated for this SINQ answer?

Smoldering systemic mastocytosis is reportable, 9741/3. Indolent systemic mastocytosis is not reportable as of cases diagnosed 2018, 9741/1.

Smoldering systemic mastocytosis and indolent systemic mastocytosis are not synonymous. Smoldering differs from indolent based on diagnostic criteria and burden of disease; indolent is low whereas smoldering is high burden of disease that can progress to aggressive systemic mastocytosis or mast cell leukemia.

We will update SINQ 20130134.

 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
20190007

Reportability--Skin: Is atypical intradermal smooth muscle neoplasm (AISMN) of the skin reportable? The comment on the path report states: Atypical intradermal smooth muscle neoplasm (AISMN) was previously termed "cutaneous leiomyosarcoma."

Atypical intradermal smooth muscle neoplasm (AISMN), previously termed "cutaneous leiomyosarcoma," is not reportable. It is classified as a borderline, /1, neoplasm.

 2019
20190084

Histology/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the histology be coded to chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), BCR-ABL1-positive (9875/3) regardless of the quantitative analysis percentage of BCR-ABL1 that was detected? See Discussion.

Example: Bone marrow biopsy diagnosis is chronic myelogenous leukemia, chronic phase, and the RT-PCR test result proved, BCR-ABL1 p210 (Major Breakpoint) - Detected, 3.3659%.

Even though the p210 fusion transcript was less than 5%, it was detected. The presence of BCR-ABL1 does define whether or not patients are treated with tyrosine kinase therapies. Therefore, it seems likely that the presence of any BCR-ABL1 would be captured using the more specific histology code 9875/3, instead of the non-specific CML, NOS histology code 9863/3.

Are there minimum threshold requirements for these quantitative studies in order to code the histology to the more specific type of CML?

Code chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) BCR-ABL1-positive as 9875/3.

According to the WHO Classification of Tumors of Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues, 4th edition, CML BCR-ABL1-positive is characterized by the chromosomal translocation t(9;22) which results in the formation of the Philadelphia (Ph) chromosome containing the BCR-ABL1 fusion gene. The diagnosis requires detection of the Ph chromosome and/or BCR-ABL1. If the mutation is detected, regardless of percentage, it is positive. Quantitative levels of BCR-ABL are used to monitor response to tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy.

 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