SEER Inquiry System - Search

Rule M4 was added to the Other Sites M Rules to address diagnoses of small cell carcinoma following prostate adenocarcinoma, but Rule M4 states the diagnoses must be greater than one year apart.

In this situation, the diagnoses were less than one year apart and one must continue through the M Rules. The next M Rule that applies Rule M19: “Abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on multiple rows in Table 2-21 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions. Timing is irrelevant.” If one were to STOP at the first rule that applies, one would stop at Rule M19 which confirms the prostatic adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma are separate primaries, regardless of timing. If these are not to be accessioned as multiple primaries, does an Exception need to be added to M19?

Rule M6 clearly states that an invasive melanoma occurring more than 60 days after an in situ melanoma is a multiple primary. However M7 states that any melanomas diagnosed more than 60 days apart are multiple primaries. Since M7 does not state malignant melanomas diagnosed more than 60 days apart, this implies that any scenario:

in situ following an invasive,

invasive following an in situ,

in situ following an in situ,

or invasive following an invasive

are all multiple primaries if more than 60 days apart. If that is the intent of M7, then M6 is totally unnecessary. If the intent of M7 is only for an invasive following an invasive, then the word malignant needs to be inserted as the first word of rule M7.

Rule PH28 confirms the more specific histologies are ignored if this is truly a low grade B-cell lymphoma (i.e., non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS) since both MALT lymphoma and LPL are more specific types of low grade B-cell lymphomas. This leaves only a diagnosis of low grade B-cell lymphoma with plasmacytic differentiation to consider.

SINQ 20130033 states a low grade B-cell lymphoma with plasmacytic differentiation should be coded as 9680/3 (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)). However, DLBCL is a high grade B-cell lymphoma, not a low grade B-cell lymphoma.

If the pathologist classifies this as a non-specific low grade B-cell lymphoma, and clarifies that this may represent a more specific type of low grade B-cell lymphoma (MALT lymphoma or LPL), should the histology be coded to a high-grade lymphoma (DLBCL) or non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS?

Sarcomotoid (8318) is listed as a specific renal cell subtype in the MP/H manual, but it is not listed as a renal cell subtype in the most recent WHO blue book for Urinary Organs. We are wondering if sarcomatoid features, as listed in the CAP protocol format in the following example, should be ignored when coding histology?

Left kidney, radical nephrectomy:

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma, with the following features:

Tumor size: 8.5 X 6 cm.

Tumor focality: Unifocal.

Macroscopic extent of tumor: Tumor limited to kidney.

Sarcomatoid features: Present (<20% of tumor shows sarcomatoid features).

Histologic grade: G4.

Microscopic tumor extension: Tumor limited to kidney.

Margins: All margins negative for invasive carcinoma.

Lymph-vascular invasion: Not identified.

Scenario: 10/17/07: Right axilla soft tissue bx - infiltrating mammary ca with lobular features arising within apparent breast tissue present within axilla. Tumor size 1.2 cm. 11/3/07: Right breast, reexcision lumpectomy - Several foci of infiltrating lobular CA. (2) foci & (5) foci within specimen (multifocal). (1) large focus also present. No lymphovascular invasion identified. Numerous foci LCIS. Pleomorphic LCIS & CIS with lobular and ductal features. Margins free of invasion however margins diffusely involved with LCIS.

When do you count foci or separate tumor nodules, when do you ignore them, and when do you code unknown values for these fields? Coding instruction 3b states, "When the tumor is multifocal or multicentric and the foci of tumor are not measured, code as 99." Instruction 4b states, "Use code 01 when there is a single tumor with separate foci of tumor." Finally, instruction 6b states, "Use code 99 when the tumor is described as multifocal or multicentric and the number of tumors is not given," which seems to imply that if we know the number of tumors, we would code that number.

Scenario: A parenchymal lesion in each lung. One lung also has a pleural lesion. MD biopsies the pleural mass only and it is positive for cancer.

Scenario: Addendum from Mayo Clinic review, IHC and consultation made dx of "anaplastic glioneuronal neoplasm with spongioblastic architecture". The original micro states 'high grade glial neoplasm w/o characteristic features of glioblastoma multiforme in that it lacks areas of significant necrosis, no nuclear palisading nor endothelial vascular proliferation...."

Scenario: Patient had a transurethral resection of the prostate on 8-29-19, positive for basal cell carcinoma with focal squamous differentiation involving approximately 50% of tissue (determined not to be mets by consult). On 11-14-19, the patient had a prostatectomy positive for residual basal cell carcinoma and a small focus of infiltrating prostatic adenocarcinoma. According to AJCC, 8th edition, page 724, basal cell carcinoma of the prostate is 8147/3 and we ignored the small focus of adenocarcinoma. The above scenario was reported as two primaries (8090/3 and 8140/3), but we are thinking it is one.

Searching the Heme Database for the term ANEMIA OF CHRONIC DISORDERS yields 71 results. However, none of the results match the terminology entered, yet all 71 "matched terms" are reportable. Is this diagnosis reportable?

Another example is HEMOLYTIC ANEMIA. The search results showed 28 "matched terms" which are all reportable, but none are exact matches.

Please clarify how we should interpret the results of these searches when using the Heme Database.

SEER Book 8 states that Decadron is an important therapeutic agent for treatment of multiple myeloma. In the Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases, Decadron is a hormonal treatment for multiple myeloma "when given as part of a chemotherapy regimen".