SEER Inquiry System - Search

None of the rules seem to apply when the lymphoma is present in an organ, distant lymph nodes and bone marrow only. No regional nodes are involved.

Does rule PH22 infer that the organ should be coded as the primary site because it has been named by the physician?

None of the histology rules for in situ breast seem to apply to this case:

• Rule H3 doesn't seem to apply because "clear cell" is not a specific intraductal carcinoma.

No exact match returned after entering the term "thrombocytopenia of unknown etiology" in the Heme DB. However, the program does indicate there are 17 results that could be displayed that show any of the 4 terms entered. Clicking on the search label indicates there are no matches either.

The only result returned after entering "thrombocytopenia" into the search box is "refractory thrombocytopenia."

Neither the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines nor the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Guidelines (including Tables 1-7) address reportability changes for chondrosarcoma grade 1. In the Solid Tumor Rules Manual, Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions, Table 7 (Tumors of Odontogenic and Maxillofacial Bone (Mandible, Maxilla)), Chrondrosarcoma grade 2/3 (9220/3) is included as a subtype/variant for sarcomas in these sites, but it does not address chrondrosarcoma, grade 1.

The ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table lists Chondrosarcoma, grade 1 as morphology code 9222/1. If Chondrosarcoma, grade 1 is no longer a reportable tumor for cases diagnosed 01/01/2021 and later, why wasn't this reportability change included in the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines? If the standard setters chose not to include this reportability change, shouldn't Table 7 also indicate that all chondrosarcomas (NOS, grade 1, grade 2 or grade 3) are reportable for cases diagnosed 2018 and later?

How are registrars to make reportability and histology coding decisions for chondrosarcomas when neither source provides clear instructions regarding these tumors?

Multiple myeloma was diagnosed more than 5 years prior to admission. The patient underwent multimodality treatment.

Currently, the patient suffered a fracture. The pathology report diagnosis was "plasmacytoma." The discharge summary states, "multiple myeloma advanced with multiple lytic lesions".

Does this scenario represent a single primary dating back to the original diagnosis? Or does the diagnosis of plasmacytoma on the recent biopsy indicate a new primary because it was originally diagnosed as acute and reverts to a chronic neoplasm after treatment more than 21 days later?

Multilocular clear cell renal cell carcinoma is a specifc histologic type listed in the CAP cancer protocol for kidney, but not in the ICD-O-3 and it is not on the list of specific types of renal cell carcinomas in Table 1 of the kidney equivalent terms and definitions in the MP/H manual. There is a malignant multilocular cystic nephroma 8959 in Table 1, but I can't tell if this the same histology as what is stated in this path report.

MRI Lumbar spine: Bony metastatic disease most evident at L5, L3 and T10. There is marrow tumor in the posterior elements of T12 and T10. The 14 mm epidural mass represents epidural tumor, likely metastatic, extending into the left intervertebral foramen at T12-L1.

PET scan: Hypermetabolic activity corresponding to epidural mass at the level of T12 and L1 concerning for malignancy. Other small areas of hypermetabolic activity in the left mandible and both femoral necks. There is no hypermetabolic activity corresponding to the areas of abnormal marrow edema in the vertebral bodies which enhanced on MRI scan in the lumbar and lower thoracic spine. No lymph nodes mentioned.

Biopsy epidural mass: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma with a background of follicular lymphoma, consistent with a large cell transformation. Flow cytometry confirms a mixed large and small cell population of lymphoma (55% large cells).

T12/L1 Bone Biopsy: Bone and marrow with atypical paratrabecular lymphoid infiltrates, suspicious for involvement by follicular lymphoma. Negative for large cell lymphoma.

MRI and CT Neck Impression: Extensive tumor mass which likely originated within the left ethmoid sinus and extends intracranially via the cribriform plate into the anterior cranial fossa. There is involvement of the left orbit and extension into the superior aspect of the left maxillary sinuses as well as the nose. Second enhancing lesion within the right maxillary sinus measures almost 2 cm. The second mass within the floor of the right maxillary sinus, with similar imaging characteristics, is consistent with malignant involvement.

The patient has an extensive ethmoid sinus tumor, biopsy showed squamous cell carcinoma. The ethmoid sinus is not a paired organ. The patient also has a small maxillary tumor with no histologic confirmation, Hem/Oncology chart notes state the right maxillary sinus mass is carcinoma. The maxillary sinus is a paired organ.

Per the AJCC Manual (AJCC Manual for Staging, 7th edition, page 70), both the ethmoid and maxillary sinuses are further identified by their laterality (left and right). Why aren't the ethmoid sinuses a paired organ for the MP/H Rules? What MP rule applies to this case?

MP/H rules do not apply to metastasis. However, it has been our experience that pathologists and clinicians tend to use the terms metastatic and recurrence interchangeably. The term "recurrence" is not limited to a tumor recurrence in the same site as a previous malignancy. Sometimes it is obvious that the clinician is using the term recurrence to describe a metastatic lesion. When a "recurrence" is located in tissue that is very different from the original primary site, it is easy to recognize that the intended meaning of the term is metastasis.

Example: Patient with squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue with recurrence in the lung.

However, when the metastatic deposit occurs in similar tissue, it is more difficult to determine the number of primaries.

Example when the term "recurrence" is ambiguous: In April 2008 patient was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the ascending colon. At the time of hemicolectomy the tumor was noted to be plastered into the paraduodenal and peripancreatic area. Patient received one dose of adjuvant chemo and then discontinued treatment. In May 2009 the patient was found to have adenocarcinoma in the transverse colon. Per the pathology report the diagnosis for segmental resection at that time showed colonic adenocarcinoma. Tumor location: tumor appears recurrent at anastomotic junction. Abdominal wall mass showed metastatic adenocarcinoma.

One has to wonder if the pathologist found a metastatic nodule at the anastomotic site and called it "recurrent." It is unlikely that the pathologist will compare this specimen to the previous tumor, having already diagnosed it as "recurrent."

MP/H rule M5 states that melanomas with ICD-O-3 histology codes that are different at the third number are multiple primaries. However, the 2007 MP/H fundamentals Webcast session on melanoma rules states that this is not two histologic types. Lentigo maligna is a growth pattern, not a histologic type. Will clarification be included in the next MP/H rules revision?