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: 02/17/2026 06:02 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20071008 Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: How is "invasive lobular carcinoma with signet ring cell features (95%) and ductal features (5%)" coded for a single tumor diagnosed prior to 2007?

For cases diagnosed 1/1/04-12/31/06, code histology to 8524 [Lobular mixed with other types of carcinoma]. Assuming there is no mention of in situ, Histology Coding Rule 3 applies: Use a mixed histology code if one exists

For cases diagnosed 2007-2014, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2007
20071020 Histology--CLL/SLL: What is the correct histology code for a lymph node described in the pathology report comment section as "phenotypically consistent with chronic lymphocytic leukemia"? See Discussion. Current rules instruct us to select the lymphoma code for lymph node and/or tissue with the dual diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma. We have a cervical lymph node biopsy with that dual diagnosis, however, the pathology comment states that after immunohistochemistry testing, the lymph node is "phenotypically consistent with chronic lymphocytic leukemia." No bone marrow or blood work-up is performed.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma. The current rules have not changed. Code to lymphoma because the diagnosis was made on a lymph node.

"Phenotypically consistent" means the lymph node contains CLL/SLL, not some other hematopoietic or metastatic disease.

For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.

 2007
20071016 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Bladder: The new multiple primary rule M7 states that tumors diagnosed more than three years apart are multiple primaries. Does this apply to in situ bladder tumors that occur more than three years apart and to an in situ tumor that occurs three years after an invasive tumor?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use the MP/H rules in order. Rule M6 comes before rule M7.

M6 states that bladder tumors with certain histologies are a single primary. It is a single primary regardless of timing if there is any combination of:

  • papillary carcinoma [8050]

  • transitional cell carcinoma [8120-8124]

  • papillary transitional cell carcinoma [8130-8131]

    • Rule M7 applies to bladder tumors with histologies other than those listed above. If you have such a case, rule M7 applies to in-situ tumors and to an in situ three years after an invasive.

    		 2007
    		20071106

    MP/H Rules--Bladder: Does rule M6 mean that any combination of tumors with the histologies 8050, 8120-8124, or 8130-8131 are the same primary regardless of the amount of time between tumor occurrences? See Discussion.

    Many interpret Rule M7 to mean when separate occurrences of TCC of the bladder are diagnosed more than 3 years apart, it is reportable as a second primary. However, doesn't Rule M6 mean that if the histology is any combination of 8050, 8120-8124 or 8130-8131 for tumors diagnosed more than 3 years apart, they are reported as a single primary?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    Papillary, transitional cell and/or papillary transitional cell carcinomas of the bladder are a single primary using Rule M6. Rule M6 includes diagnoses within 3 years of each other AND diagnoses more than three years apart for the histologies listed. If rule M6 applies to your case, stop. Do not continue on to Rule M7.

    		 2007
    		20071038 MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is it generally correct that the code for PNET [9473/3] should be used to code tumors arising in the brain and spinal cord, and the code for pPNET [9364/3] should be used to code tumors arising in the bone and soft tissue? See Discussion.

    The terms and definitions for "Brain" in the 2007 MP/H rules distinguish between pPNET and PNET. Is it correct even when the diagnostic terminology alone would lead to other coding, such as "PNET" used to diagnose a soft tissue mass in the chest and "neuroectodermal tumor" used to diagnose a brain mass?

    Should additional rules be added to both "Brain" and "Other Sites" to enforce this distinction?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    Yes. Assign code 9473/3 for tumors arising in the brain and spinal cord and assign code 9364/3 for tumors arising in the bone and soft tissue.

    Clarification and reinforcement of this distinction will be added to the "Other sites" terms and definitions with the first revision to the MP/H rules.

    		 2007
    		20071085 CS Tumor Size/CS Extension--Prostate: Because prostatectomy results are excluded from the CS Extension field for prostate, is code 95 [No evidence of primary tumor] accurate to reflect bilateral lobe involvement of prostate cancer when it is incidentally found following a radical cystectomy for a bladder primary? Why must tumor size be 000 when the CS Extension code is 95?

    This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Code prostate CS Extension to 99 [Extension unknown] and code CS Tumor Size according to the information available from the surgery.

    CS Extension code 95 [No evidence of primary tumor] should be used only in that rare situation when the only evidence of disease is distant mets or lymph node involvement, no primary tumor found. That is why CS tumor Size must be 000 when CS Extension code 95 is used.

    		 2007
    		20071117 MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain: How many primaries are reported and what is the histology for a single brain tumor described as a low grade astrocytoma at the time of the initial partial resection and a low grade glioneuronal neoplasm at the time of the subsequent total resection? See Discussion. On 4/20/07 a partial resection of a brain tumor is interpreted as low grade astrocytoma. Patient has a gross total resection on 8/13/07 with this diagnosis: low grade glioneuronal neoplasm (see comment). Comment: This case has been reviewed at ---. Dr. agrees with our interpretation (low grade glioneuronal neoplasm, possibly a dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumor).

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is a single primary. A single tumor is always a single primary.

    Assign histology code 9400/3 [Astrocytoma, low grade]. This diagnosis was not revised or amended based on the later surgery. It is possible that the malignant component was entirely removed during the first surgery.

    		 2007
    		20071050 MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: Regarding histology rule H21, is there a hierarchy or do you code the higher histology if there is an adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp and an adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    If you arrive at H21 and have an additional decision to make regarding the use of 8210, 8261 or 8263, you must make another pass through the histology rules. The second pass will determine which of the two or three histology codes to assign. The answer will vary depending of the specifics of the case.

    Example:

    Transverse colon: Adenocarcinoma in an adenomatous polyp involving muscularis propria and adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma involving subserosa of transverse colon. Start with rule H15 because there are multiple tumors. Stop at H21 -- code either 8210 or 8261. To decide between 8210 and 8261, make a second pass through the histology rules, starting again with H15. Stop at H20. Code the histology of the most invasive tumor, 8210 [Adenocarcinoma in adenomatous polyp].

    		 2007
    		20071074 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many primaries should be reported when an "adenocarcinoma" is discovered in one of several new nodules at the scar in a lung and it is less than a year after a wedge resection for a diagnosis of "bronchioalveolar adenocarcinoma" in the same lung? See Discussion.

    In March 2006 patient diagnosed with bronchioalveolar adenocarcinoma [8250/3] and had wedge resection. In November 2006 a CT chest shows nodules at the scar suspicious for recurrence. In January, 2007, there was a biopsy of one of the nodules showing adenocarcinoma [8140/3].

    Is this part of the original disease process diagnosed in March 2006 or should it be abstracted as a new primary based on 2007 MP/H rules (histology is different at the first 3 digits)?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    Try to obtain more information/clarification on the 2007 diagnosis -- for example, is it metastasis?

    Based only on the information provided for this case, the 2007 diagnosis is a separate primary.

    Use the 2007 MP/H rules to assess the 2007 diagnosis. Begin with rule M3 in the multiple tumors section. Stop at rule M11, multiple primaries.

    		 2007
    		20071022 Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: If the bone marrow biopsy diagnosis is not reportable and cytogenetics studies indicate no clonal abnormality, is a case reportable if only the flow cytometry results show a "small monoclonal B-lymphocyte population consistent with a lymphoid component of a lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma or Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia"? See Discussion.

    Bone marrow bx final diagnosis: Markedly hypercellular marrow consisting primarily of erythroid hyperplasia and, also, diffusely distributed small lymphocytes. Addendum comment: Flow cytometry demonstrated a small monoclonal B-lymphocyte population consistent with a lymphoid component of a lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma or Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia. Addendum comment: Cytogenetic analysis states no clonal abnormality was apparent. Normal female karyotype.

    Question 1: Is this case reportable, and if so, what histology?

    Question 2: Is there a hierarchy when flow cytometry and cytogenetics are done, but do not agree?

    For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:This case is not reportable at this point. A lymphoid component is not equivalent to a diagnosis of a reportable disease. In order to be a malignant, reportable disease, the condition must be monoclonal and irreversible. Cytogenetics were negative for malignancy (i.e. no monoclonal abnormality identified which is the criteria used to establish this diagnosis). Use all information available when determining reportability.

    For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.

    		 2007