Back to Search Results

Report Produced: 02/01/2023 07:37 AM

Report Question ID (Ascending) Question Discussion Answer

First course treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Corpus uteri: Is an omentectomy performed with a hysterectomy for an endometrial primary site recorded under Surgery of Other Site? See Discussion.

Per SEER 20140003, an omentectomy is not recorded under Surgery of Other Site when performed with a hysterectomy for an endometrial primary. Is this still correct? CoC appears to have different guidelines stating in a forum that an omentectomy is coded in data item Surgical Procedure to Other Site. I would like to confirm SEER guidelines. Is this one of those unique situations that SEER and STORE differ? Our state follows SEER guidelines and would like to communicate the appropriate rules to our facilities.

Continue to record an omentectomy performed with a hysterectomy under Surgery of Primary Site and not as a separate procedure under Surgical Procedure of Other Site. The guidance In SINQ 2014003 and 20091118 is unchanged.


Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Head & Neck: How is histology coded for a glossotonsillar sulcus tumor with both squamous cell carcinoma and mucoepidermoid carcinoma? See Discussion.

Patient had a radical pharyngectomy showing a glossotonsillar sulcus tumor with high grade squamous cell carcinoma and adjacent high grade mucoepidermoid carcinoma. The pathologist commented, the tumor is composed of high grade mucoepidermoid carcinoma and high grade conventional-type squamous cell carcinoma that are immediately adjacent to one another. Given that the tumors are arising so close together and could represent a single neoplastic process with divergent morphologies, they are staged together.

Employing Solid Tumor Manual Rule M1 (single primary if unable to determine if there is a single or multiple tumors), it was determined that this should be reported as a single tumor because the pathologist referred to the case as both a tumor singular and tumors pleural. However, the Solid Tumor Manual Histology Rules for a Single Tumor do not appear to have an instruction for coding this histology combination.

Abstract multiple primaries using 2018 Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rule M8 as these are separate tumors described as arising close together, and are on different rows in Table 3. Code histology separately as squamous cell carcinoma (8070/3) and mucoepidermoid carcinoma (8430/3).

This appears to be a collision tumor. Collision tumors are counted as two individual tumors for the purpose of determining multiple primaries. Collision tumors were originally two separate tumors that arose in close proximity. As the tumors increased in size, they merged or overlapped each other. While more common in the colon, they can occur in other sites as well.


Race: How should race information from linkages be incorporated into the coding of Race? See Discussion.

Race information is provided in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) linkage results. Oftentimes it matches what is coded in the database, but other times it does not.

In situations where the CMS (or other) linkage provides a race value that differs from the coded Patient set, are we to ignore the CMS stated race given the SEER Manual instructions indicating self-reported race has priority or should we add the different Race values from linkages as an additional race (ex. Race 02)?

Use self-reported race as the priority when information on race is available. Use the associated text field to document why a particular race code was chosen when there are discrepancies in race information. Generally, race information is used from linkages when race data is missing or unknown, or to enhance data.

We will add clarification on linkages in the next SEER Manual update.


Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned for a patient diagnosed with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) with ring sideroblasts in 2005, and stated to have progressed to high risk disease/early evolving acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in 09/2019? See Discussion.

The bone marrow biopsy proved bone marrow with blasts comprising 15-19%. Neither the pathologist nor the physician specifically diagnosed this as AML, calling this only high risk disease or early evolving AML prior to starting the patient on Vidaza.

No further information can be obtained from the pathologist or the physician for this case. Should this early evolving AML be accessioned as an additional primary per Rule M10, or should this be considered the same MDS that is now high risk as the blast count is up to 19%, but has not yet reached the threshold of 20% blasts usually required for AML per the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Database?

Abstract a single primary as we do not abstract early/evolving AML. This is still one primary until there is a confirmed diagnosis of AML.


Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Colon: Solid Tumor Rules 2018, Colon Rule M7, bullet 3 indicates that (if neither bullet 1 or 2 apply) a new tumor at the anastomotic site must be stated to arise in the mucosa (confirmed in SINQ 20190096) to qualify as a new primary. However, there is often no clear statement of tumor arising from or involving mucosa (unless the new tumor is limited to the mucosa) noted by pathologists in our region. Do any of the following examples imply a new tumor arising in mucosa per Rule M7, bullet 3? See Discussion.


1) New tumor at the ileocolic anastomosis, described as a, Circumferential centrally ulcerated mass with raised borders. Tumor extension: Tumor invades through muscularis propria into subserosal adipose tissue, no involvement of the serosal surface identified. The only mention of mucosa on the resection is the uninvolved enteric mucosa or uninvolved colonic mucosa in the otherwise uninvolved portions of the ileum/colon. If neither bullet 1 or 2 apply, is this a new primary per M7 bullet 3?

2) Right colon with anastomosis site. Tumor site: Anastomosis. Tumor extension: Tumor invades through the muscularis propria. Gross description does not describe mucosa, only noting, at the central area of anastomosis is an ill-defined, slightly raised, tan-brown to purple mass measuring 2.2 x 2 cm, which is nearly circumferential, causing obstruction at the site of anastomosis. If neither bullet 1 or 2 apply, is this a new primary per M7 bullet 3?

3) Polyp at ileocolonic anastomosis, polyp biopsy final diagnosis was, Invasive moderately differentiated colonic adenocarcinoma in association with adenoma. No mention of mucosa on the biopsy final diagnosis or gross description. Clinical info indicates, There is an ulcerated 5 cm mass at the ileo-colonic anastomosis that was biopsied. If neither bullet 1 or 2 apply, is this a new primary per M7 bullet 3?

Following the 2018 Colon Solid Tumor Rules M7 and M8:

Example 1: Assuming the first and second tumors are not different histologies or they occurred less than or equal to 24 months apart (M7 Bullets 1 and 2 do not apply), abstract a single primary as the pathology states uninvolved enteric mucosa or uninvolved colonic mucosa (no involvement noted).

Example 2: Assuming the first and second tumors are not different histologies or they occurred less than or equal to 24 months apart (M7 bullets 1 and 2 do not apply), abstract a single primary as there is no mention of mucosal involvement.

Example 3: Assuming the first and second polyps/tumors are not different histologies or they occurred less than or equal to 24 months apart (M7 bullets 1 and 2 do not apply), abstract a single primary as there is no mention of mucosal involvement. Of note in the case of the polyp, tumors coded as adenocarcinoma in a polyp, should be treated as adenocarcinoma (8140) for cases prior to 2018. Also, if the pathologist states the new tumor/polyp originated in the mucosa, it is a new primary.

The rules which address "recurrence or new tumor at the anastomosis were created with the input of several gastrointestinal expert pathologists (CAP, AJCC, and WHO). Pathologists should be following CAP reporting guidelines and include information such as mucosal involvement in the final diagnosis and/or synoptic report. We can revisit this question that all polyps start in the mucosa and if needed, revise the rules to state this.


Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Brain and CNS: How are histology and primary site coded when a resection of a spine, designated intramedullary lesion, shows primary intramedullary melanocytoma? See Discussion.

Patient has a resection labeled as: Spine, designated intramedullary lesion. The Final Diagnosis is: Melanocytic neoplasm with features most consistent with primary intramedullary melanocytoma. The Diagnosis Comment states: The overall immunophenotypic and morphologic impression is a primary central nervous system melanocytoma.

The ICD-O-3 lists melanocytoma, NOS histology code as 8726/0, but does not provide a site-associated code. If the ICD-O-3 is used, the histology would be 8726/0 and the primary site presumably would be C720 since the tumor was specifically described as being intramedullary (i.e., within the spinal cord medulla).

Table 6 (Solid Tumor Rules, Non-Malignant CNS Equivalent Terms and Definitions) does not list either an intramedullary melanocytoma or melanocytoma (NOS). However, Table 6 does include meningeal melanocytosis 8728/0 and meningeal melanocytoma 8728/1. If Table 6 is used and the histology is coded 8728/1, then the primary site would presumably be C701 per the ICD-O-3 site-associated listing for this histology (C709).

Code primary site to spinal meninges (C701) and histology to meningeal melanocytoma (8728/1).

According to the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System, 4th ed., primary melanocytic neoplasms of the central nervous system are diffuse or localized tumors that presumably arise from leptomeningeal melanocytes. Benign or intermediate grade lesions are termed melanocytomas. Meningeal melanocytoma is defined as a well-differentiated, solid, and non-infiltrative melanocytic neoplasm that arises from leptomeningeal melanocytes. Most arise in the extramedullary, intradural compartment at the cervical and thoracic spine though they can be dural-based or associated with nerve roots or spinal foramina.


Tumor Size--Clinical--Breast: Does information from any type of biopsy take precedence over an imaging report? See Discussion.

For example, a patient has a 2.6 cm breast tumor on MRI; a core biopsy measuring 0.7 cm is positive for infiltrating duct carcinoma. Rule #1 states "Use the largest measurement of the primary tumor from physical exam, imaging, or other diagnostic procedures before any form of treatment." However, Rule #9 seems to imply that size from an "incisional biopsy" takes precedence over imaging, even though it is known to be less than the entire tumor in size.

We do not recommend using the size from a core biopsy for clinical tumor size. A core biopsy does not necessarily obtain enough tissue to know the actual tumor size. Since there is imaging for this patient, it is preferable to record clinical tumor size from the imaging report in this case.

The instructions will be clarified in the next revision of the SEER manual.


Reportability/Histology--Vulva: Is Extramammary Paget neoplasm (intraepithelial glandular neoplasm) reportable? See Discussion.

Patient had a vulvar biopsy with final diagnosis of Extramammary Paget neoplasm (intraepithelial glandular neoplasm). No invasion identified. We are unable to contact the pathologist or physician for clarification.

Although this terminology is not listed in the ICD-O-3, web search results refer to this as a possible synonym for Paget disease with associated VIN III, which is reportable.

According to our subject matter expert, vulvar extramammary Paget neoplasm (intraepithelial glandular neoplasm) represents an in situ malignancy and should be reported.

He states "The traditional terminology should be 'extramammary Paget disease' to describe an in situ adenocarcinoma arising from extramammary glands in vulvar mucosa. I am not so sure about "extramammary Paget NEOPLASM", which may include all three Pagetoid processes: the traditional Paget disease, the Pagetoid spreading of an anal adenocarcinoma and a Pagetoid spreading of an urothelial carcinoma from the urethra. Regardless, all these entities are considered at least in situ carcinomas."

We recommend that you review clinical records and imaging for the clinical scenarios mentioned above.


Histology--Head & Neck: Why is 8070 not listed as a valid histology for ill-defined sites as squamous cell carcinoma arises in the head and neck sites. See Discussion.

Per the site validation list:, ill-defined sites (ILL-DEFINED C760-C768) does not include 8070- Squamous cell carcinoma as a valid histology. Therefore when a Cervical Lymph Node and Unknown Primary Tumor of the Head and Neck is submitted with a C760 and 8070/3, it requires an override be set.

Histology code 8070 has been added to C760 on the site validation list. It will be updated for 2021. Continue to override this combination for now.


Reportability: Is ASIN-H (high-grade anal squamous intraepithelial neoplasia) equivalent to anal intraepithelial neoplasia, III (AIN III)?

High-grade anal squamous intraepithelial neoplasia (ASIN-H) is synonynous with anal intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III (AIN III).