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: 09/21/2026 08:46 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20081101

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: If a 1.7 cm LUL lung tumor is not treated surgically, would a 2.1 cm tumor in the same lobe three years later be a new primary? See Discussion.

In 2004 the patient has a 1.7cm squamous cell carcinoma diagnosed in the LUL of the lung treated with radiation and chemotherapy. In 2007, the patient was diagnosed with a 2.1cm squamous cell carcinoma in the LUL treated with radiation. According to the lung MP/H rules, the 2007 tumor would be a new primary. Given that there was no surgery, would the second tumor be progression of disease or would it be a new primary?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

If the tumor diagnosed in 2004 was successfully treated and disappeared, apply the MP/H rules for lung. According to rule M8, the 2004 tumor and the 2007 tumor are multiple primaries. If there was no disease-free interval between tumor occurrences, that is, if the 2007 tumor is still the same tumor that was diagnosed in 2004, the MP/H rules do not apply.

 Lung N/A 2008
20081111

MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: If an in situ carcinoma diagnosed in 2007 demonstrates comedo necrosis, should the histology be coded to comedocarcinoma in situ? See Discussion.

According to the new MP/H rules, we code descriptive features. There is no coding guidance or reference to "necrosis" within the breast MP/H rules. Based on SEER SINQ 20021002, the "comedo necrosis" would not be coded at all for pre-2007 cases. Does this still hold true for cases diagnosed after January 1, 2007?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, comedo necrosis is not synonymous with comedocarcinoma. If no further information is available for this case, code as carcinoma in situ.

 Breast Histology 2008
20081002 Primary site: What is the correct primary site code for angiosarcoma of the spleen with mets to bone marrow C42.2 vs C49x? See Discussion.

Robbins Pathology states the following about liver angiosarcomas: Hepatic angiosarcomas are rare but of interest because they are associated with distinct carcinogens, including arsenic (exposure to arsenical pesticides), Thorocast (a radioactive contrast medium previously widely used in radiology), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (widely used in plastics). The increased frequency of angiosarcomas among works in the PVC industry is one of the truly well-documented instances of chemical carcinogenesis in humans. With all these agents, there is a very long latent period of many years between exposure and the development of tumors.

Could the same apply to the spleen?

 Code C422 [Spleen] as the primary site for angiosarcoma of spleen with metastasis to bone marrow. N/A Primary site 2008
20081066 Multiplicity Counter/Type of Multiple Tumors--Breast: How should these fields be coded when path shows a 1.2 cm infiltrating carcinoma with lobular features and several foci of infiltrating lobular carcinoma [7 foci described as multifocal], 1 large focus, and numerous foci of LCIS and CIS with lobular and ductal features? Should we count the foci or separate tumor nodules, ignore them, or code unknown values for these fields? See Discussion.

Scenario: 10/17/07: Right axilla soft tissue bx - infiltrating mammary ca with lobular features arising within apparent breast tissue present within axilla. Tumor size 1.2 cm. 11/3/07: Right breast, reexcision lumpectomy - Several foci of infiltrating lobular CA. (2) foci & (5) foci within specimen (multifocal). (1) large focus also present. No lymphovascular invasion identified. Numerous foci LCIS. Pleomorphic LCIS & CIS with lobular and ductal features. Margins free of invasion however margins diffusely involved with LCIS.

When do you count foci or separate tumor nodules, when do you ignore them, and when do you code unknown values for these fields? Coding instruction 3b states, "When the tumor is multifocal or multicentric and the foci of tumor are not measured, code as 99." Instruction 4b states, "Use code 01 when there is a single tumor with separate foci of tumor." Finally, instruction 6b states, "Use code 99 when the tumor is described as multifocal or multicentric and the number of tumors is not given," which seems to imply that if we know the number of tumors, we would code that number.

Multiplicity Counter: Use instruction 4b. Since there is one measured tumor and the foci were not measured, code the multiplicity counter 01 [One tumor only].

Type of Multiple Tumors: Code Type of multiple tumors 00 [Single tumor].

 Breast N/A 2008
20081133 MP/H Rules--Breast: What histology code is used for lobular carcinoma, pleomorphic type? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H14 and code the histology 8520 [lobular carcinoma]. 8520 is the only ICD-O-3 code for lobular carcinoma. There are no codes for specific lobular types. Breast N/A 2008
20081062 MP/H Rules/Date of Diagnosis/Behavior--Brain and CNS: How many primaries would be reported when a December 2004 MRI shows a pineal region mass with the major differential consideration being pineocytoma; a November 2007 MRI that shows the mass has almost tripled in size; and the December 2007 resection final diagnosis is consistent with pineoblastoma? How would diagnosis date[s] and behavior code[s] be coded? See Discussion.

Dec. 2004 MRI of brain: Pineal region mass. The major differential consideration given patient's gender, age group, and imaging characteristics is pineocytoma. The differential includes pineoblastoma or germ cell line tumor. These are felt less likely.

Nov. 2005 MRI brain: stable exam since last MRI. No change in size.

Nov. 2007 MRI studies: pineal mass has almost tripled in size.

Dec. 2007 Surgical resection of pineal tumor: High grade (WHO Grade IV) pineal parenchymal neoplasm consistent with pineoblastoma.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Abstract as separate primaries:

  • 12/2004 pineocytoma (9361/1)

  • 12/2007 pineoblastoma (9362/3)

    • Complete two abstracts when a previously diagnosed non-malignant tumor transforms or progresses to a malignancy. Refer to the CDC/NPCR guidelines for Data Collection of Primary Central Nervous System Tumors, 2004. Malignant transformation is discussed on page 50.

    		Brain and CNS N/A 2008
    		20081009

    Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation: If a physician signs a case out as "precancerous melanosis of the face" (8741/2) and there is no microscopic confirmation of the disease, is this a reportable clinical diagnosis?

    This case is reportable because the diagnosis of precancerous melanosis was stated by a recognized medical practitioner. Precancerous melanosis meets the reportable diagnosis criteria (See 2007 SEER Manual page 1).

    Assign diagnostic confirmation code 8 [clinical diagnosis only].

    Set the appropriate override flag for the SEER edit.

    		 N/A Diagnostic confirmation 2008
    		20081059

    Reportability/Histology--Head and Neck: Is a right cerebellopontine (CP) angle endolymphatic sac papillary tumor (ELST) reportable? If so, what is the histology code?

    Revised December 2015

    ELST is reportable. Code histology to adenocarcinoma (8140/3). Code primary site to inner ear (C301).

    Endolymphatic sac tumors are rare non-metastasizing adenocarcinomas that originate in the endolymphatic sac of the inner ear (C301). They are slow growing and widely invade, and in later stages often destroy, the petrous bone. The WHO Classification assigns ICD-O-3 code 8140/3.

    		Head & Neck Histology 2008
    		20081113

    Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is a cavernoma reportable as a benign brain tumor? See Discussion.

    Cavernous hemangiomas are typically described as vascular malformations in the brain. Per a search of the literature, cavernoma, cavernous hemangioma and cavernous malformation are all synonymous. There is some controversy as to whether cavernomas are vascular malformations or tumors. Cavernous hemangioma (9121/0) has been assigned a code in the ICD-O-3. The other terms are not even listed. Benign brain guidelines indicate that named tumors that have been assigned an ICD-O-3 code are reportable. Would we report a lesion that is labeled cavernous hemangioma but not one that is labeled carvernoma? Are cavernous malformations of the brain to be reported as benign brain tumors? The MP/H guidelines for benign brain tumors do not include blood vessel tumors in chart 1.

    Are the following tumors reportable? If so, what is the primary site?

    Example 1: Patient admitted for resection. Clinical diagnosis is left temporal cavernous hemangioma. Path diagnosis is cerebral cortex and white matter showing cavernoma.

    Example 2: Patient admitted for resection with clinical diagnosis of parietal cavernous hemangioma. Path shows A-V malformation.

    Example 3: Patient had T4 spinal tumor removed. Path showed cavernous angioma.

    Reference: I&R 18109 and 23460

    Cavernoma is a reportable benign brain tumor. According to our pathologist consultant, cavernoma is synonymous with cavernous hemangioma.

    Examples

    1. Reportable. Primary site - C710 [cerebrum]

    2. Not reportable. Path dx disproves clinical diagnosis.

    3. Not reportable. Not a brain tumor.

    		 Brain and CNS N/A 2008
    		20081107 Multiplicity Counter/Ambiguous terminology: How should these fields be coded for cases with an unknown date of diagnosis? If the date of diagnosis is unknown, it is likely that you have little information for this case. Both multiplicity counter and ambiguous terminology fields would probably be coded as unknown. However, if information on the number of tumors and the diagnostic confirmation are available, code these fields as specified in the manual. N/A N/A 2008