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: 08/05/2024 00:24 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021058

Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: When simultaneously diagnosed breast tumors of the same histology in the same breast are stated by the pathologist and/or clinician to be more than one primary, should these be reported as multiple primaries? See discussion.

For example, based on special pathology studies that showed a difference in appearance between tumors, a pathologist may state that two ductal, NOS tumors diagnosed at the same time in the same breast represent two primaries.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code as a single primary. Follow the guidelines in the SEER Program Code Manual for determining multiple primaries. Simultaneous multiple lesions of the same histologic type in the same site (same breast) are a single primary for SEER, even though the pathologist may perform special studies and state that the patient has more than one primary.

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2002
20000269

Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Is an in situ tumor followed by another in situ tumor in the same location a new primary? See discussion.

Example: Six months after an in situ lesion was excised from the buccal mucosa, another in situ lesion was excised from the same area of the buccal mucosa with no mention of it being recurrent.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code as a second primary if the second in situ tumor occurred more than 2 months after the first, and it is not referred to as recurrent by the clinician or pathologist. There are no special rules for determining the number of primaries when an in situ lesion follows an in situ.

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2000
20031055

Histology (Pre-2007)/Primary Site/Diagnostic Confirmation: How would these fields be coded for a diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma based on clinical findings only? See Discussion.

We have a case of reported "cholangiocarcinoma" of the liver diagnosed only by a CT of the abdomen. There is no pathologic confirmation. CT ABD: Heterogeneous liver mass suspicious for cholangiocarcinoma; mass causes right portal & right hepatic vein occlusion & right and left biliary duct dilatation....

Should this be coded to cholangiocarcinoma by radiology alone and should it be liver as primary site?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code according to the prevailing medical opinion in this case. If no further information can be obtained, code as cholangiocarcinoma of the intrahepatic bile duct.

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2003
20031034

Histology (Pre-2007)--Kidney, renal pelvis: What codes are used to represent the histologies of 1) "renal papillary (chromophil) carcinoma" and 2) "chromophil renal cell carcinoma?"

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code "chromophil" to 8260 [papillary renal cell]. According to our pathologist consultant, in the case of chromophil, most authors regard this as more or less synonymous with papillary renal cell [8260]. "More or less" because papillary is an old term descriptive of the microscopic structure, while chromophil is newer and based on the cytology; because most of the latter are papillary the current usage assumes them to be equivalent.

1) The diagnosis "renal papillary (chromophil) carcinoma" tells us that the pathologist who wrote it was seeing both pattern and cytologic features, and is regarding papillary equivalent to chromophil; thus, code to 8260.

2) Code "chromophil renal cell carcinoma" to 8260.

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2003
20051023

Reportability/Recurrence (Pre-2007)--Bladder: If a patient has had recurrent invasive bladder cancers since 1971, should the latest recurrence in 2003 be SEER reportable because the case has yet to be reported to SEER?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Because this 2003 recurrent bladder cancer was initially diagnosed prior to 1973, it is not reportable to SEER.

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2005
20021124

Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Primary Site/EOD-Extension--Lung: Should lung cases be counted as more than one primary when nodules removed from separate lobes of the same lung have either the same histology or they are different immunophenotypes of the same main histologic classification (e.g., adenocarcinoma)? See discussion.

1. Path report: "Two nodules (RLL, RUL) of primary pulmonary demonstrate adenocarcinoma with different histologic appearances and different immunophenotypes consistent with synchronous lung adenocarcinomas." Per ICC interpretation, two lung primaries are favored.

2. Path report: "Two peripheral nodules (LLL, LUL) demonstrate similar P.D. non-small cell carcinoma with features of large cell undifferentiated carcinoma."

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

According to current SEER rules, both examples represent one primary because both tumors are in one lung and of a single histologic type. Code the Primary Site field to C34.9 [Lung, NOS] for both examples and the EOD-Extension field to 77 [Separate tumor nodules in different lobe]. This will capture the fact that there are multiple tumors within the lung for each of these examples.

Differences in immunophenotypes confirm independent de novo cancers and rule out metastasis. Immunophenotype differences do not equate to different histologies. In the first example described, there are different histologic features; however, the main classification is adenocarcinoma.

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2002
20031158

Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Trachea/Lung: Would synchronous lesions, of the same histology, diagnosed in the right upper lobe of the lung and trachea be a single primary when the physician feels they are two separate primaries?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

According to SEER rules, abstract as one primary because although these sites have separate topography codes in ICD-O-3, they were coded to the same three-digit topography code in the first edition of ICD-O (SEER Program Code Manual, 3rd Edition, page 8, Exception B). Simultaneous lesions of the same histology in trachea and lung are one primary. Code the primary site to C399 [Ill-defined sites within respiratory system].

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2003
20031056

Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: For a patient with a remote history of lobular breast carcinoma, would a new diagnosis of lobular breast carcinoma with DCIS be a new primary, even though the physician designates it as recurrent? See Description.

A history of right breast lobular ca in 1991 treated with a partial mastectomy. Diagnosed 3/02 with "recurrent right breast ca" per physician; pathology in 2002 is lobular and DCIS.

Would the DCIS make this a new primary regardless of the physician's designation of 'recurrent' or is this the same primary?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Accession as two breast primaries -- the first lobular ca in 1991; the second lobular and DCIS in 2002.

The differing histologies and the length of time between them negate the physician's designation as "recurrent" in this case.

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2003
20031117

Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Are simultaneous tumors of the rectosigmoid junction and rectum counted as two primaries? See Description.

On the same day in 1998, a patient was found to have a T3 adenocarcinoma of the rectosigmoid junction and an in situ adenocarcinoma in a villotubular adenoma in the lower rectum. These would be the same histology if they are in the same site.

Are C199 and C209 the same site? They are listed in ICD-O-2 (pg. xxxvii) and in ICD-O-3 (pg. 36), but they are not listed in the SEER Program Manual on page 9 as the same site. Is this one primary or two?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Abstract two primaries for the example above, according to the main rule on page 7 in the SPCM. Rectosigmoid junction (C19) and rectum (C20) are in different 3-digit ICD-O-3 topography code categories. Rectosigmoid junction and rectum are not included in the exceptions to the main rule and, therefore, do not appear on page 9 of the SPCM.

The table on page 9 is not identical to the table in ICD-O-3. Two site combinations are listed in ICD-O-3, but not in the SEER table: C19 (rectosigmoid junction) and C20 (rectum); C40 (bones of limbs) and C41 (other bones). Abstract multiple tumors in the rectosigmoid junction and rectum as separate primaries. Abstract multiple tumors in the bones of the limbs and other bones as separate primaries.

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2003
20041084

Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Vulva/Vagina: In 2004 if multiple biopsies reveal VAIN III of the vaginal wall, and VIN III of the left fourchette and the right labia minora is this one primary per the SEER Site Grouping Table on page 9 of the 2004 SEER Manual because vulva and vagina are supposed to be abstracted as a single site?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Abstract the case above as one primary according to multiple primary rule 3a. Code the primary site to C579 [Female genital, NOS] according to the table on page 9 of the 2004 SEER Manual.

Multiple tumors of the same site and same histology diagnosed at the same time are abstracted as one primary. Multiple independent tumors of the vulva and vagina are abstracted as a single site when diagnosed simultaneously. VAIN III and VIN III have the same histology code [8077].

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2004