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: 05/03/2026 01:44 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20081015

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: Should a subsequent primary be abstracted using rule M8 for a patient diagnosed in January 2000 with adenocarcinoma of the right upper lung if the patient initially sought alternative therapies and presented in September 2007 for a right upper lobe lung mass with extension into the mediastinum, mediastinal lymph node mets and a pericardial effusion? See Discussion.

After more than seven years, the patient in this case decided to proceed with the originally suggested standard therapy. Is this a multiple primary case because the tumors are "diagnosed" more than 3 years apart? Or should we assume this is further progression of the 2000 case because it was originally only treated with alternative therapies? The clinician in this case indicates the patient is being referred for treatment to the right upper lung originally diagnosed in 2000.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Do not abstract a 2007 primary for this case. From the information provided, there is disease progression/extension and lymph node metastasis in 2007; but there are no new lung tumors in 2007. Therefore, the 2007 MP/H rules do not apply.

 2008
20081007 CS Extension--Lung: How is "subpleural extension" coded?

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.Subpleural extension means that the tumor extends to the subpleural space, but the pleura itself is not involved. Assign the appropriate extension code based on the other facts for the case. Do not code pleural involvement.

 2008
20081125 Reportability: Is the following tumor(s) reportable? MRI of thoracic spine shows intramedullary hemangiomas in the bodies of T5 and T6.

Intramedullary hemangiomas in T5 and T6 are not reportable.

These benign tumors originate in the bone, not spinal canal, cord or dura. Benign tumors of the bone are not reportable.

According to WHO, the most common sites of involvement are the vertebral bodies, followed by craniofacial skeleton and long bones.

 2008
20081002 Primary site: What is the correct primary site code for angiosarcoma of the spleen with mets to bone marrow C42.2 vs C49x? See Discussion.

Robbins Pathology states the following about liver angiosarcomas: Hepatic angiosarcomas are rare but of interest because they are associated with distinct carcinogens, including arsenic (exposure to arsenical pesticides), Thorocast (a radioactive contrast medium previously widely used in radiology), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (widely used in plastics). The increased frequency of angiosarcomas among works in the PVC industry is one of the truly well-documented instances of chemical carcinogenesis in humans. With all these agents, there is a very long latent period of many years between exposure and the development of tumors.

Could the same apply to the spleen?

 Code C422 [Spleen] as the primary site for angiosarcoma of spleen with metastasis to bone marrow. 2008
20081133 MP/H Rules--Breast: What histology code is used for lobular carcinoma, pleomorphic type? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H14 and code the histology 8520 [lobular carcinoma]. 8520 is the only ICD-O-3 code for lobular carcinoma. There are no codes for specific lobular types. 2008
20081014 Surgery of Primary Site--Prostate: How is transurethral microwave treatment coded for prostate primaries?

Assign code 16 [Hyperthermia]. See the SEER Note on page C-747 of the 2007 SEER Manual:

Code Transurethral Microwave Thermotherapy (TUMT) as 16.

 2008
20081121

Multiple primaries/Histology--Lymphoma: How many primaries should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded in this situation?

How would the bone marrow involvement by only NHL be handled? Composite lymphoma (9596) as defined by SEER and ICD-O is NHL and HD in one node which fits the final impression on the removed cervical node. See Discussion.

 Patient presented with cervical, supraclavicular & superior mediastinal lymphadenopathy. A cervical node was excised for pathological review. The final impression on that node was Composite lymphoma characterized by (1) Nodular Lymphocyte Predominant Hodgkin Lymphoma [HD] (2) CLL/SLL [NHL]. Then, a bone marrow aspirate/bx was performed revealing CLL/SLL [NHL].

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:This is a single primary. The histology code is 9596/3 [composite Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma].

According to the Single Versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table, 9596/3 followed by 9670/3 is one primary.

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.

 2008
20081115 CS Extension--Brain and CNS: How is this field coded for a malignant tumor presenting as a confluent lesion over right parietal, posterior frontal and thalamic regions?

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.

Assign CS extension code 40 [Tumor crosses the midline; Tumor involves contralateral hemisphere; Tumor involves corpus callosum (including splenium)]

The thalamus is located between the corpus callosum and the cerebellum and brain stem. A supratentorial tumor extending to the thalamus involves the corpus callosum (extension code 40) but has not yet reached the cerebellum or brain stem. Code 40 applies, but code 50 or any higher code is not applicable in this case.

 2008
20091128

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be accessioned when a patient was diagnosed with breast carcinoma in 2001 and was subsequently diagnosed with a mammary carcinoma in a chest wall mass in 2008? See Discussion.

Patient was diagnosed with invasive lobular carcinoma of the right breast in April 2001. Following modified radical mastectomy in May 2001, the patient was disease free. In December 2008 the patient was diagnosed with a right chest wall mass, invasive poorly differentiated mammary carcinoma with lobular origin. If this is a new primary in 2008, would we code the primary site to breast or chest wall? Please see I&R answers 25924, 22163 and 26155 with similar case scenarios that give two different answers. One response indicates coding this type of scenario as new primary to chest wall and the other two responses indicate this should not be a new primary because the chest wall is a metastatic site. The pathology report does not state that this is metastatic and it is unknown if there is breast tissue left behind at the chest wall.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this case is a single primary. The chest wall (NOS) is a metastatic site for breast cancer. There is no mention of residual breast tissue, so the 2008 diagnosis cannot be a new primary.

"Chest wall" is an ambiguous term. It can mean the internal chest wall or the external chest wall. When the path report states that the "recurrence" is in residual breast tissue, this is most likely the external chest wall and the residual breast tissue is part of the breast not removed by the MRM. In contrast, skin or the chest wall, NOS, are regional metastases.

 2009
20091049 P/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung/Breast: Can we assume that a current tissue specimen is a recurrence of previous primary if a pathologist states that he has compared the current specimen with the slides from the prior tumor and concludes that the current tumor is "similar" to a previous tumor? See Discussion.

The MP/H rule general information section states that we do not accession a second primary unless a pathologist compares the current tumor to the original tumor and states that the current tumor is a recurrence of cancer from the previous primary. In our experience it is rare that a pathologist speaks so bluntly. They frequently hedge somewhat.

Are the following statements worded strongly enough for us to make the assumption that the current tumor is a recurrence of patient's previous cancer?

Example 1: Pathologist states: Patient's prior lung tumor reviewed. The tumor in the current case (left lower lobe) shows similarities to some areas of the patient's prior left lower lobe tumor.

Example 2: Pathologist states: The focus of ductal carcinoma in the mastectomy specimen does resemble the carcinoma in the previous partial mastectomy specimen. (Slides reviewed).

All pathologists do not use words in the same way. Therefore, we will not provide a list of specific words to accept or not to accept in order to determine recurrence. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, do not base your decision about recurrence on words such as "similar" or "resembles." If the pathologist believes two or more tumors are the same or believes one is a recurrence of another after comparison, accept it. When pathologists believe that two or more tumors are not the same or believe that one is not a recurrence of another, there is usually a strong statement indicating that opinion. 2009