SEER Inquiry System - Search

The patient had residual tumor following the 2018 transsphenoidal resection and underwent an additional surgery after the residual tumor increased in size. Since pituitary adenoma/pituitary neuroendocrine tumor (PitNET) is a new malignant neoplasm for cases diagnosed 2023 and later, should this be a new primary per M5? Or do we disregard the change in behavior and apply rule M2 (single tumor is a single primary) for this scenario?

These diagnoses were made greater than one year apart with a disease-free interval and M12 seems to be the first rule that applies. This rule does not specifically state the tumors diagnosed greater than 1 year apart must be in the same primary site but Note 1 could be interpreted as implying this. Note 1 states, “Clinically disease-free means that there was no evidence of recurrence in the same site on follow-up.”

Does Other Sites Rule M12 (the timing rule) apply to tumors in different primary sites? It would be helpful if the notes specified this clarification, such as “Clinically disease-free means that there was no evidence of recurrence in the same site (same second and third character CXX.X) on follow-up.”

The final diagnosis for a left thyroid lobectomy was Papillary thyroid microcarcinoma, further stated to be Histologic Type: Papillary carcinoma, follicular variant, encapsulated/well demarcated, non-invasive. The diagnosis comment states there is a small follicular pattern papillary microcarcinoma.

Is the designation of “non-invasive” for this papillary follicular tumor equivalent to a non-reportable diagnosis of Non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP), 8349/1? Or should this be accessioned as either a reportable in situ (non-invasive) papillary follicular thyroid carcinoma or a papillary microcarcinoma per the diagnosis comment?

The patient has adenopathy and a lymph node biopsy proved CLL/SLL. The patient underwent a peripheral blood smear, but the final diagnosis only indicated there is an abnormal CLL panel, positive for monoallelic or biallelic deletion of 13q. The pathologist noted a CLL related clone was detected, but there was no definitive diagnosis of CLL on the peripheral blood. No bone marrow biopsy was performed. However, the managing physician noted this was Rai Stage I CLL/SLL with adenopathy in the neck.

The SSDI Manual notes, “Rai stage is only applicable for CLL, in which the bone marrow and/or peripheral blood are involved (primary site C421 for bone marrow, see Hematopoietic Manual, Module 3: PH 5, 6).” Should primary site default to C421 if the physician provides a Rai Stage in the absence of definitive peripheral blood or bone marrow involvement documented in the medical record?

The patient has adenopathy in multiple lymph node regions above and below the diaphragm and a lymph node biopsy pathology proved CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL). Further work-up with peripheral blood proved an abnormal CD5-positive B-cell population comprising only a small percentage of the white blood cells (WBCs). The pathologist noted this neoplastic B-cell population comprises “3.5% of white blood cells and has an immunophenotype characteristic of CLL/SLL and is similar to the recent lymph node biopsy in this patient.” The managing physician indicated this was a Lugano Stage III SLL. The registrar coded the peripheral blood involvement in EOD Primary Tumor.

If this small percentage of WBCs with an abnormal B-cell population is included in EOD Primary Tumor as peripheral blood involvement, then this would indicate peripheral blood/bone marrow involvement and primary site would need to be coded to C421 per Rule PH5. Rules PH5 and PH6 confirm primary site must be coded C421 if peripheral blood or bone marrow are involved.

Is there a cutoff value for these abnormal B-cell populations in the peripheral blood? Or should these abnormal B-cell populations be ignored unless the pathologist states the abnormal B-cell population is consistent with CLL/SLL (not just immunophenotypically characteristic of CLL/SLL)?

The patient was diagnosed with a biopsy-proven 12/2020 LUL SCC treated with radiation only, followed by a right hilar lymph node biopsy in 07/2022, that proved “metastatic pulmonary adenocarcinoma” per pathology and treated with radiation, followed by a biopsy-proven 12/2022 RLL SCC to be treated with immunotherapy only. The imaging never definitively identified a lung tumor that can be assumed to be a primary adenocarcinoma tumor.  In 06/2022, a PET scan only described a “strongly PET positive Rt inferior hilar LN vs infrahilar pulmonary mass,” as well as the subsequently biopsy-proven SCC in the RLL (12/2022 SCC primary). The biopsy path indicates this was a right hilar lymph node metastasis and does not indicate this is an infrahilar pulmonary mass. No other PET positive pulmonary lesions were seen at the time.

The oncologist’s assessment indicates the right hilar node was the only positive finding on the biopsy, and it was unclear if this right hilar node metastasis was from the left lung or if the primary was “not detectable.” The oncologist summarized this as a LUL lung lesion radiated for SCC, a right hilar lesion radiated for adenocarcinoma, and a RLL lung lesion on pathology found to be SCC.

Should the interval occurring metastatic adenocarcinoma be accessioned as a separate lung, NOS primary based on the histology difference? While the Solid Tumor Rules do not apply to metastasis, the oncologist did treat these three malignancies separately and does not indicate the hilar lymph node metastasis was felt to be from either SCC primary.

SINQs 20190083, 20180088, and 20130221 all indicate diagnoses of prostate adenocarcinoma, followed by a diagnosis of metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate are separate primaries because these are distinctly different histologies. Does this logic still apply for 2023 and later since Rule M4 was added to the Other Sites M Rules? Rule M4 states, “Abstract multiple primaries when the patient has a subsequent small cell carcinoma of the prostate more than 1 year following a diagnosis of acinar adenocarcinoma and/or subtype/variant of acinar adenocarcinoma of prostate.”

This patient has a 2018 diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma treated with radical prostatectomy, followed by a 2023 diagnosis of metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate diagnosed on a liver metastasis core biopsy. Rule M4 does not indicate whether it applies to subsequent biopsy confirmed metastatic tumor only. When a diagnosis of small cell carcinoma follows a diagnosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma, it is almost always confirmed in metastatic sites rather than in the primary site. Does the logic in the referenced SINQs above still apply for Rule M4?

There was a 3.5 cm invasive adenocarcinoma tumor in the pancreatic head. There were four separate, sized pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors measuring 0.9, 0.7, 0.5 and 0.2 cm in the pancreatic body. There are multiple tumors with distinctly different histologies. However, Table 11 (Pancreas Histologies) does not include any entries for neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas (e.g., pancreatic NET, WHO grade 1, histology 8240). While it would seem Rule M19 should apply as they’re distinctly different histologies, because PanNETs are not included in Table 11, it is not clear which M Rule applies to these multiple tumors.

If Rule M19 does not apply, we are left with Rule M21 (Abstract a single primary when there are multiple tumors that do not meet any of the above criteria). Are these separate tumors with distinctly different histologies really a single primary? Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors are not an uncommon histology, is there a reason these were not included in Table 11?

Based on the EOD General instructions for accessible sites, the following three requirements must be met

a. There is no mention of regional lymph node involvement in the physical examination, pre-treatment diagnostic testing, or surgical exploration;

b. The patient has localized disease;

c. The patient receives what would be the standard treatment to the primary site (treatment appropriate to the stage of disease as determined by the physician), or patient is offered usual treatment but refuses it.

As a central registry, we receive a lot of melanoma path reports but never receive an abstract since the patients are seen at a dermatology office that does not report to the central registry. In these scenarios, we have both the diagnosis and wide excision or Mohs surgery from which we create a consolidated record. It is not often that lymph nodes are removed which indicates there were no palpable nodes.

Since the Breslow’s and Clark’s level allow for summary staging, is it possible to have central registry guidelines that allow for coding lymph nodes other than 999? The path reports meet two of the three criteria. Is there any new literature that supports coding lymph nodes 000 based on a Clark’s level or Breslow measure providing the patient has a wide excision?