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: 04/03/2025 22:24 PM

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
20000431

Surgery Fields--Multiple sites: What code is used to represent these fields for the following surgical procedures?

1. Tongue, NOS - Hemiglossectomy with lymph node dissection

2. Choroid - Eye enucleation

3. Vulva, NOS - Vulvectomy with bilateral lymph node dissection

4. Gallbladder - Cholecystectomy

5. Lung - Laminectomy with partial removal of tumor

For cases diagnosed 1/1/03 and later:

1. Code Surgery of Primary Site to 30 and Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery to 3.

2. Code Surgery of Primary Site to 41.

3. Code Surgery of Primary Site to 40 and Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery to 3.

4. Code Surgery of Primary Site to 40.

5. Code Surgical Procedure of Other Site to 4.

 2000
20100110

Reportability--Esophagus/Stomach: Are the terms "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" synonymous with in situ for tumors in the gastrointestinal tract? See Discussion.

SINQ 20000245 states that high grade or severe dysplasia in not synonymous with in situ disease. However, per page 109 in the 7th edition of AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, high grade dysplasia is the only term listed under Tis. A note on that page explains that "high-grade dysplasia includes all noninvasive neoplastic epithelia that was formerly called carcinoma in situ, a diagnosis that is no longer used for columnar mucosae anywhere in the gastrointestinal tract."

There has been considerable pressure from registrars at larger reporting facilities to re-address this issue. The pathologists at these facilities state that they are correctly documenting the presence of in situ disease when they use the term high grade dysplasia for gastrointestinal tract tumors. In their opinion, it is not necessary to add the term in situ in parentheses following the use of the term high grade dysplasia to clarify the behavior of these lesions in their pathology reports. If the term "carcinoma in situ" is no longer being used by many pathologists for sites in the gastrointestinal tract, won't this lead to underreporting of in situ disease for these sites unless the reportability guidelines are changed?

For cancer reporting purposes, the terms "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" are not synonymous with in situ for tumors in the gastrointestinal tract. These cases are only reportable when the pathologist documents carcinoma in situ or intraepithelial neoplasia grade III, or when the registry includes in their policies and procedures the pathologist's statement that he/she uses HGD to mean the same as CIS.

Reportability laws are customarily based on ICD-O. Because "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" are not designated as in situ in the ICD-O, there is no legal authority to report these cases in most states.

NAACCR is reviewing this issue. See #5 on page 11 of the December 1, 2013 NAACCR Implementation document, http://www.naaccr.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=u7d3sB71t5w%3d&tabid=126&mid=466

2010
20150065

First course treatment/Chemotherapy/Drug category: Instructions in SEER*Rx state that Ibrance should be coded as chemotherapy. They also state that it is an endocrine-based therapy. Local physicians refer to Ibrance as hormone therapy. Please clarify.

For cancer registry data collection, follow the instructions in SEER*Rx. It is important for all data collection to be consistent for reporting of cancer information.

Per the FDA: Ibrance is a chemotheraputic agent which was approved for use WITH Letrozole. Letrozole is a hormonal drug which may be why the physicians are stating the patient is receiving hormones. Ibrance should not be given alone to treat breast cancer. This drug will not be changing categories in SEER*Rx.

2015
20170043

Reportability--Ovary: Is ovarian mucinous borderline tumor of intestinal type with microinvasion reportable? If reportable, what is the histology? See Discussion.

4/18/17 Right ovary and fallopian tube, salpingo-oophorectomy: mucinous borderline tumor of intestinal type with microinvasion; greatest dimension 24.5 cm. Left fallopian tube and ovary, salpingo-oophorectomy: Benign ovary with multiple benign Mullerian inclusions. Benign fallopian tube with multiple paratubal cysts. Per pathology: pT1a pNx.

For an ovarian mucinous borderline tumor, the term "microinvasion" is not an indication of malignancy according to the WHO classification of tumors, and our expert pathologist consultant agrees. Therefore, borderline mucinous ovarian tumor with microinvasion is not reportable. Low malignant potential/borderline ovarian tumors are defined by the pathology of the primary tumor in the ovary, and microinvasion there, or invasion in implants does not change that diagnosis. The only exception is when the lymph nodes are positive for malignancy, the case is reportable. If the lymph nodes are positive for mucinous borderline tumor, the case is not reportable.

 2017
20230006

SEER Manual/First Course Treatment--Hematologic Transplant And Endocrine Procedures:  How are Surgery of Primary Site and the Hematologic Transplant And Endocrine Procedures data items coded when patient has total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral oophorectomy for an endometrial primary during the same procedure? Also, how would these data items be coded for a vaginal primary in a surgical scenario?  See Discussion.

The 2023 SEER Manual instructions contain a new note in Hematologic Transplant And Endocrine Procedure, Coding Instruction 6, regarding bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) when performed for hormonal effect for breast, endometrial, vaginal, and other primary cancers. While we have observed BSO being performed for breast primaries, we do not recall ever seeing a statement for endometrial or vaginal primaries regarding a “BSO being done as hormonal manipulation” when scheduled either with or without a hysterectomy being performed simultaneously. As a result, we are not clear exactly when a BSO would be captured in the Hematologic Transplant And Endocrine Procedure field for these gynecologic primary sites.

Also, if these types of procedures are Hematologic Transplant And Endocrine Procedures, are they also captured and coded in the Surgery of Primary Site codes that directly relate to those same organs? Does timing have any effect on the coding of either field?

For a primary endometrial or ovarian cancer, record the oophorectomy/BSO procedure using the appropriate Surgery of Primary Site code that includes oophorectomy/BSO when done as part of first course of treatment (surgical resection). If performed for hormone effect, also record in the Hematologic Transplant and Endocrine Procedures data item.  For other primary sites whose Surgery of Primary Site codes do not include oophorectomy/BSO, record it in the Hematologic Transplant and Endocrine Procedures data item when performed for hormone effect.  Document information in the appropriate text fields.

Candidates for risk-reducing BSO may include those with hereditary syndromes (such as BRCA mutations) or genes that carry a substantially increased lifetime risk of ovarian malignancy or hormone-sensitive cancers including estrogen-dependent cancers, like breast cancer, ovarian cancer and endometrial (uterine) cancer that rely on estrogen to develop and grow.

 2023
20081128

MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What is the histology code for the following?

4/21/03 Left breast: infiltrating ductal carcinoma, grade 3 micropapillary type. Tumor size: 3.5 cms; deep margin negative. Skin, nipple & areola positive for invasive ductal carcinoma. Dermal lymphatic invasion by carcinoma breast. Extensive intraductal component absent. 6+/6. See Discussion.

 How should histology be coded for a 2003 diagnosis and also for the same diagnosis in 2007 or later?

For a case diagnosed in 2003, code 8507/3 [Duct micropapillary carcinoma]. See Coding Complex Morphologic Diagnoses, revised August 2002, 3rd example on page 5 and page 3, #4.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code 8507/3 [Duct micropapillary carcinoma]. Use rule H12.

 2008
20190065

Update to current manual/EOD 2018/Summary Stage 2018--CLL/SLL: Can chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) be staged when diagnosed by peripheral blood and no bone marrow biopsy, and observation is employed? See Discussion.

The physicians do not use the Lugano system as we are instructed to stage chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) as lymphomas. I had always been instructed that this qualifies as "bone marrow involvement," or "diffuse disease," and therefore is a Stage IV. Our experts advise that there is not enough information to code it to bone marrow, but do not elaborate as to whether you can actually code Extent of Disease (EOD), SEER Summary Stage, and AJCC Staging?

For EOD and Summary Stage: Peripheral blood involvement for CLL (or any lymphoma-but most commonly for CLL) can be coded. This is code 800 for 2018 EOD Primary Tumor, and code 7 for Summary Stage 2018. We have recently received confirmation that peripheral blood involvement only is not enough information to assign AJCC stage; assign code 99 for AJCC Stage Group. We will correct in the 2021 release of EOD so that peripheral blood involvement only will have its own code to derive the appropriate AJCC TNM Stage Group (99).

 2019
20190088

Surgery of Primary Site/Surgical Procedure of Other Site--Breast: When bilateral nipple/skin sparing mastectomies are performed for a single primary confined to one breast, we should code 30 for surgery and 0 for Surgery of Other Site or follow the CAnswer Forum and code 1 in Surgery of Other Site? See Discussion.

Registrars are confused because the STORE manual dropped "involved" from the description of contralateral breast removal in the Appendix B surgical codes. In April, 2019, CAnswer Forum instructed registrars to code both the surgery with uninvolved breast to the proper code, plus code Surgery of Other Site to 1. In October, they stepped back and instructed registrars not to code Surgery of Other Site to 1 if a code for uninvolved breast removal is included in the breast surgery code. However, they insist that if the surgery code is 30, subcutaneous mastectomy, and the uninvolved contralateral breast is also removed, then continue to code Surgery of Other Site to 1. This contradicts the specific instructions for Surgery of Other Sites.

For single primaries only, code removal of involved contralateral breast under the data item Surgical Procedure/Other Site (NAACCR Item # 1294), this is, code 1, according to the 2018 SEER Manual:

Assign code 1

When the involved contralateral breast is removed for a single primary breast cancer

This would also apply when Surgery of the Primary Site code is 30 (subcutaneous mastectomy) for breast. If uninvolved, assign code 0 to Surgical Procedure of Other Site

SEER registries should follow the instructions according to the SEER Manual.

 2019
20200013

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.

Examples:

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.

 2020