Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20160055 | Reportability--Bone: Is an "atypical cartilaginous tumor" reportable? See Discussion. |
Patient had a core needle biopsy of the right acetabulum. Final diagnosis on the path report is: Atypical cartilaginous tumor (formerly chondrosarcoma, grade 1).
Is this cell type reportable? If so, is it reportable only because the pathologist recorded clarifying text in parentheses? If the text in the parentheses was not available, is the histology "atypical cartilaginous tumor" reportable? |
Atypical cartilaginous tumor of bone is not reportable. The WHO terminology is "atypical cartilagenous tumor/chondrosarcoma grade I." WHO classifies this entity as low malignant potential (behavior code /1).
Chondrosarcoma grade II or grade III is reportable based on the WHO classification of malignant (behavior code /3). |
2016 |
|
|
20170075 | MP/H Rules/Behavior--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted for a patient with a history of left breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) diagnosed in 2014 and bone lesions showing metastatic carcinoma consistent with a breast primary in 2017? See Discussion. |
Patient was diagnosed with DCIS of the left breast in June 2014. The patient had a simple mastectomy with 2 axillary lymph nodes removed. The final diagnosis was intermediate to high grade ductal carcinoma in situ, predominantly micropapillary type, forming a 1.4 cm mass. No invasive carcinoma identified. Margins negative. In April 2017, the patient was found to have parietoccipital bone lesions, which were resected. The resulting diagnosis was metastatic carcinoma, morphologically consistent with breast primary " See Comment: The previous breast lesion is not available for review at the time of signout. However, the tumor is morphologically compatible with a breast primary. SINQ 20110111 would not make this is new primary. However, it seems that rule M8 might apply. An invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days after diagnosis is a multiple primary. See Note 2: Abstract as multiple primaries even if the medical record/physician states it is recurrence or progression of disease. |
Assuming there were no other breast or any other tumors for this patient, change the behavior code to /3 on the original abstract for the 2014 breast primary. Similar to SINQ 20110111, there was likely a focus of invasion present in the original tumor that was not identified by the pathologist. The behavior code on the original abstract must be changed from a /2 to a /3 and the stage must be changed from in situ to localized. The MP/H rules do not apply to metastases. Therefore, rule M8 cannot be used. |
2017 |
|
|
20230012 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Prostate: How many primaries are accessioned when a 06/2022 diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma is followed less than one year later by a 01/2023 diagnosis of small cell carcinoma (SmCC)? See Discussion. |
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 M18: “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 M18 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 M18? |
Assuming the smal cell is a seperate tumor, accession two primaries, adenocarcinoma (8140/3) of the prostate and SmCC (8041/3) of the prostate using Rule M18 of the current Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules. As these two tumors are less than a year apart, Rule M4 does not apply; however, Rule 18 does apply as these are two distinct histology types. It takes time for an acinar tumor to transform into the small cell and it is usually triggered by hormone and/or radiaiton treatment. |
2023 |
|
|
20110110 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Head & Neck: If a 1991 neuroesthesioblastoma [9522/3] of the nasal cavity has subsequent recurrences of the same histology but later "recurs" in 2008 with "sarcoma, NOS, high grade" on a biopsy and a "high grade fibrosarcomatous transformation of esthesioneuroblastoma" [8810/3] on resection, should the subsequent tumor be reported as a new primary if the clinician continues to refer to the tumor as a "recurrence"? See Discussion. |
Are histologic transformations always recurrences of the original tumor? |
Assuming the same primary site for the 2008 lesion, according to the current MP/H rules the high grade fibrosarcoma [8810/3] is a new primary per Head & Neck MPH rule 11 because it is a different histology. The revised MP/H rules will include tables to define tumors that de-differentiate (transform) and recur with what is seemingly a different histology. Although the rules will be changed in the future, we must use the rules in place at this time for this case. |
2011 |
|
|
20140062 | MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: Does lung MP/H Rule M6 apply to synchronous tumors only, metachronous tumors only, or both? See discussion. |
How many primaries should be reported when a patient has a history of RLL adenocarcinoma diagnosed on 10/8/2009 followed by diagnoses of LUL adenocarcinoma on 10/5/2012 and a RUL adenocarcinoma on 3/26/2014?
We applied Rule M6 to the 10/5/2012 diagnosis of LUL adenocarcinoma and reported an additional primary. However, we are unsure how to apply the MP/H rules for the 3/26/2014 RUL adenocarcinoma.
Should we apply Rule M8 because the RUL adenocarcinoma was diagnosed more than 3 years after the original RLL adenocarcinoma and then apply M6 because the RUL and LUL indicate a single tumor in each lung (resulting in a third primary); or does Rule M12 apply because there has been more than a single tumor in each lung (no new primary)? |
Assuming each of the three diagnoses is a single tumor and there are no other tumors in either lung, abstract two primaries: 1 in the RLL diagnosed on 10/8/2009 and 1 in the LUL diagnosed on 10/5/2012. Do not abstract the 3/26/2014 diagnosis as a new primary.
Rule M6 applies to the 2009 and 2012 diagnoses. Rule M12 applies to the 2012 and 2014 diagnoses. Do not compare the 2014 diagnosis to the 2009 diagnosis. Always compare the latest diagnosis to the most recent previous diagnosis in cases like this. |
2014 |
|
|
20200064 | Primary site--Heme &Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the primary site of two extraosseous plasmacytomas, with positive pathology of right orbit and left lung. The patient's bone marrow biopsy, flow, and peripheral blood smear were negative. Is this coded as 9732/3, multiple myeloma (Primary Site and Histology Rule PH2) with the primary site as C809 (PH27)? Or is the primary site C421 since code 9732 says primary site is always C421, though bone marrow came back as negative? |
Assign the primary site to C421 since that is the only allowable primary site for plasma cell myeloma, even though the bone marrow was negative. According to the revised criteria from the WHO Blue Book for Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms (2017), the presence of multiple plasmacytomas is plasma cell myeloma (9732/3). |
2020 | |
|
|
20210078 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018/2021)/Multiple Primaries--Skin Cancer: How many primaries are assigned for sebaceous carcinomas using the Solid Tumor/Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules? Does this scenario represent eight separate primaries? See Discussion. |
Details 4/15/2018: Right abdominal wall mass excision: infiltrating sebaceous carcinoma. Noted to have a history of Muir-Torre/Lynch syndrome. 1/21/2019: Two left upper back mass excisions and two lower back (laterality not specified) mass excisions: infiltrating sebaceous carcinomas 8/7/2019: Excision of multiple sebaceous carcinomas from the right posterior back, left posterior thigh, left anterior abdominal wall, left anterior thigh, right scrotum, right lower abdominal fold, all positive for sebaceous carcinoma on pathology report 9/30/2020: Right gluteal mass, left gluteal mass, back (NOS) excisions: sebaceous carcinomas. 10/14/2020: Right back excision: sebaceous carcinoma. Op note: History of Lynch syndrome with multiple sebaceous carcinomas, recurrent back mass, site of prior mass resection. 10/18/2021: Right thigh excision: sebaceous carcinoma Proposed primaries using MP/H Other Sites Rules #1: 4/15/2018: C445-1 #2: 1/21/2019: C445-2, separate from #1 per M8, same as 1/21/19 C445-9 per M18 #3: 8/7/2019: C445-1, separate from #1 per M10, separate from #2 per M8 #4: 8/7/2019: C447-2, separate from #1 & #3 per M8, separate from #2 per M12 #5: 8/7/2019: C632, separate from #1 per M10, separate from #2-#4 per M11 #6: 9/30/2020: C445-2, separate from #1 & #3 per M8, separate from #2, #4 & #5 per M10 #7: 9/30/2020: C445-1, separate from #2, #4 & #6 per M8, separate from #1, #3 & #5 per M10; I do not think the back, NOS (C445-9) is a new primary per M18. #8: 10/18/2021: C447-1, separate from #2, #4 & #6 per M8, separate from #1, #3, #5 & #7 per M10 |
Assign the number of primaries following the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules. Based on sites, laterality and or timing there are 8 primaries. This is similar to SINQ 20061112 that advised to follow the Multiple Primaries/Histology rules for sebaceous carcinoma. According to the WHO Classification of Skin Tumors, 5th edition, there is a 30-40% risk of local tumor recurrence, and 20-25% risk of distant metastasis. In only one instance did a physician refer this as a recurrence in the available notes. |
2021 |
|
|
20210074 | Update to Current Manual/Neoadjuvant Therapy--Pancreas: How are the neoadjuvant items coded for a patient who has unresectable pancreatic cancer and starts chemotherapy but will be evaluated after X cycles to see if patient may become a surgical candidate? |
Assign the neoadjuvant therapy data items as if the patient had neoadjuvant therapy. Neoadjuvant Therapy data item would be coded either code 1 or 2 depending on whether the chemotherapy was completed or not. In this case, they are a surgical candidate by having the chemotherapy with the plan from the beginning to evaluate the chemotherapy after X cycles to see if surgery can be performed. After the patient is evaluated, update the abstract as needed. |
2021 | |
|
|
20240059 | Update to the Current Manual/SEER*RSA--SEER Site-specific Factor 1: The 2024 SEER Manual and SEER*RSA say that Codes 10-51 are hierarchical; use the highest code that applies (10 is highest, 51 is lowest). Should the guidance say that 51 is highest, 10 is lowest since code 10 is a HPV negative p16 test? |
Assign the highest code with 51 as the highest and 10 the lowest when there is more than one test performed with differing results. The SEER Manual will be updated in the 2025 release. SEER*RSA will be updated in a future release, version 3.3 in 2026, as version 3.2 has been updated for 2025. |
2024 | |
|
|
20190068 | First course treatment/Scope of Reg LN Surgery--Breast: How is Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery coded when the operative report does not agree with the actual number and type of nodes removed? Are we attempting to capture the intended surgery or the type and number of nodes removed? See Discussion. |
Example 1: Operative report states the surgery is a right breast simple mastectomy. There is no lymph node removal documented or attempted; however, a single incidental intramammary node is found in the final pathology results. How should these nodes be captured in the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field? CAnswer Forum states to code Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery as 0 (No regional lymph nodes removed), see Scope LN surgery, incidental LN found on path, Breast. However, SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2018 instruction states: Code the removal of intra-organ lymph nodes in Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery. Example: Local excision of breast cancer. Specimen includes an intra-mammary lymph node. Assign code 4 (1 to 3 regional lymph nodes removed). The STORE 2018 Manual does not provide instruction for incidental nodes specifically, but does appear to be focused on capturing procedural intent. Example 2: Patient has bilateral breast primaries. Operative report states the surgery is bilateral simple/skin-sparing mastectomies with bilateral sentinel node biopsies and immediate reconstruction. However, pathology shows that the left breast specimens are labeled: (a) Left breast mastectomy, (b) Left sentinel lymph node biopsy, (c) Additional left lymph nodes biopsy, and (d) Left axillary contents biopsy. The total nodes removed for this case are: 2/2 positive SLN, 0/1 positive intramammary nodes, 1/1 positive additional lymph node, and 3/3 positive axillary contents nodes. How should these nodes be captured in the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field? |
Assign the best code in Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery to capture the type and number of nodes removed. Example 1: Code 4; 1 to 3 regional lymph nodes removed. There is no statement of the procedure being a SLNBx or dissection in the operative report; the pathology report identified one incidental regional lymph node. Coding instruction #4 example says to assign code 4 if there is a local excision of breast cancer and specimen includes an intra-mammary lymph node. Example 2: Code 6, Sentinel node biopsy and code 3, 4, or 5 at same time or timing not noted. The operative report describes sentinel node biopsies only and does not mention axillary lymph node dissection; however, the pathology report details other lymph nodes in addition to the SLNBx. In addition to the LSLNbx and left LN bx, the pathology report describes "Left axillary contents biopsy" and a total of seven lymph nodes removed. |
2019 |
An official website of the United States government
