SEER Inquiry System - Search

The pathology report final diagnosis is, "skull base mass, biopsy: neuroendocrine carcinoma, see note. NOTE: Ancillary IHC studies reveal ...the IHC signature is incompatible with ependymoma. The constellation of findings is diagnostic of well differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma."

The site/histology combination of C410 and 8246/3 is 'impossible' by SEER edits. There is no override. What is the correct primary site and histology?

Patient was diagnosed in 2005 with multiple myeloma and following stem cell transplant 2005 was in complete remission.

On 2/1/10 an excisional biopsy of a soft tissue right flank mass showed plasmacytoma. On 3/2/10 the bone marrow biopsy was stated to be consistent with plasma cell dyscrasia. An outside attending physician stated the bone marrow biopsy was consistent with a relapse of myeloma. There was no radiologic evidence of disease elsewhere as of Feb 2010, only the soft tissue right flank mass. Patient initially presented for post-op radiation to the right flank and was treated 3/29/10. On 8/6/10 a biopsy of a right perinephric mass was positive for plasmacytoma. Subsequent xray on 8/16/10 of the right tibia and fibula showed lytic lesion consistent with progression of myeloma.

Using the Hematopoietic Database, the plasmacytoma in 2/1/10 is a second primary. How do the rules apply to the perinephric soft tissue disease and right tibia lesion? Are they separate new primaries? Or is all of this simply a recurrence of the original 2005 diagnosis as the attending physician states?

Per SINQ 20021106, for tumors diagnosed prior to 2007, a clinical diagnosis of metastatic gestational trophoblastic disease was to be coded to histology 9100/3 [Choriocarcinoma]. "Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia includes the diagnosis of choriocarcinoma."

Per notes included in CSv2, the cardia/EGJ, and the proximal 5cm of the fundus and body of the stomach [C16.0-C16.2] have been moved from the Stomach chapter and added to the Esophagus chapter effective with AJCC TNM 7th Edition. A new schema, EG Junction, was created in CSv2 to accommodate this change. Tumors arising at the EGJ, or arising in the stomach within 5 cm of the EGJ and crossing the EGJ are staged using the schema for EG Junction. MP/H Rule M11 states that tumors with ICD-O-3 topography codes that are different at the second (Cxxx) and/or third characters (Cxxx) are multiple primaries.

In light of the fact that tumors of the GE junction are now included with tumors of the esophagus in AJCC 7th Edition, will the MP/H rules also be adjusted to reflect that change?

Patient had bilateral ovarian tumors. The right ovary had serous cystadenocarcinoma and left ovary had clear cell adenocarcinoma. The pathology COMMENT section stated, "Based on the histologic differences of the tumors within each ovary, feel these represent two distinct separate primaries. Lymph node metastases are clearly serous ca." The physician staged the right ovary as T2a N1 M0 and left ovary as T1c N0 M0. Do we accession one primary per rule M7 [Bilateral epithelial tumors (8000-8799) of the ovary within 60 days are a single primary]?

What is intention of Rule M7? If the histology in each ovary is different but within the range (8000-8799), is that supposed to be accessioned as one primary? Or is the intention of Rule M7 that tumors in both ovaries must have the SAME histology within that histology range to be a single primary?

The final diagnosis on the pathology report for a brain biopsy is "Anaplastic large cell lymphoma, ALK-negative." Per a progress note: right inguinal lymphadenopathy. CT scan is consistent with multiple lymph node groups enlarged. Right lower extremity cutaneous nodular lesion; cutaneous lesions likely cutaneous lymphoma.

Should the histology be coded 9702/3 [anaplastic large cell lymphoma, ALK-negative], and the primary site C447 [skin of leg]? Or is the physician using "cutaneous lymphoma" as a general term indicating infiltration and the primary site is really C779 [lymph nodes, NOS]?

A patient has a history of invasive bladder cancer diagnosed several years ago in another state. In 2009, the patient was admitted and found to have a positive biopsy for transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder.

Is this a new primary because the histology of the previous bladder cancer is unknown? When the histology of a previously diagnosed bladder cancer is unknown, should we assume the previous tumor was urothelial carcinoma?