Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
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. |
Bladder | N/A | 2005 | |
|
|
20200036 | Reportability--Skin: Is malignant proliferative trichilemmal tumor (PTT) reportable, and if so, do we apply the matrix rule and code it to 8103/3? A literature search reveals these do exist, but are extremely rare. |
Malignant PTT (8103/3) of the skin is not reportable. A neoplasm originating in the skin with histology coded to 8103 is not reportable. See 1.b.i. on page 7 in the 2018 SEER manual for a complete list, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2018/SPCSM_2018_maindoc.pdf |
Skin | N/A | 2020 | |
|
|
20200025 | Reportability/Ambiguous terminology--Bone: Is a case reportable when the imaging described a left first rib mass as ? See Discussion. |
The radiologist noted the mass was most compatible with a chondroid lesion, which is not reportable on its own, but can the subsequent term be used to accession this as reportable if only one malignant etiology is provided by the radiologist? Or does the statement imply that this is only one of several possible etiologies? |
Review this case with the involved physicians to determine their opinion on the bone mass. Review the plans for further evaluation and treatment (if any) to determine whether the physicians view this case as a chondroid lesion, chondrosarcoma, or something else. If it is not possible to obtain further information, do not report the case at this time. If further information becomes available, review the case again for reportability. |
N/A | N/A | 2020 |
|
|
20200018 | Reportability: Is ASIN-H (high-grade anal squamous intraepithelial neoplasia) equivalent to anal intraepithelial neoplasia, III (AIN III)? |
High-grade anal squamous intraepithelial neoplasia (ASIN-H) is synonynous with anal intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III (AIN III). |
N/A | N/A | 2020 | |
|
|
20160054 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Melanoma: How many melanoma primaries should be abstracted if, during the workup for a metastatic melanoma of an unknown cutaneous site, an in situ melanoma is also discovered? See Discussion. |
Patient has diagnosis of melanoma with spindle cell features found in a right lower lobectomy specimen. Chart notes indicate this is metastatic from a cutaneous primary of unknown site. Further work up includes a biopsy of the tip of the nose, which is diagnostic for in situ melanoma. Should this be abstracted as two separate primaries, one for an invasive melanoma of unknown primary site and the other for an in situ melanoma of the skin on the tip of the nose? Which MP/H Rule would apply? |
Yes, abstract this as two separate primaries, an invasive melanoma of unknown primary site and an in situ melanoma of the skin on the tip of the nose. Rule M3 applies. |
Melanoma | N/A | 2016 |
|
|
20180032 | Reportability--Appendix: Is low grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) reportable for 2018? It is staged as pTis(LAMN) AJCC 8th ed by pathologist. |
Low grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) is not reportable in 2018. See page 6, https://20tqtx36s1la18rvn82wcmpn-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2018-ICD-O-3-Coding-Table-Alpha-order-.pdf. Use cancer registry reportability instructions to determine reportability. Do not use the AJCC TNM manual to determine reportability. |
N/A | N/A | 2018 | |
|
|
20200008 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Corpus uteri: How many primaries are accessioned for patient with a minimally invasive endometrial adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp in 2001, followed by a metastatic poorly differentiated clear cell carcinoma of gynecologic (GYN) origin in 2019? See Discussion. |
The patient has a history of a minimally invasive endometrial adenocarcinoma that was low grade and confined to an endometrial polyp in 2001. The patient underwent a total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAH/BSO) that entirely removed the tumor at that time. Almost 18 years later, the patient had a left inguinal mass excision that was, Carcinoma of gynecologic origin, consistent with clear cell carcinoma. No other disease was found, the physician never indicated whether this was felt to be metastatic from the previous, low grade adenocarcinoma or not. It was only noted as, an unusual malignancy of the left lower quadrant and inguinal region of gynecologic origin. No further information was available in the medical record or from the physician on follow-up. Although neither the Solid Tumor Rules nor the MPH Rules (still in use for the Other Sites schema) apply to metastasis, given the differences in histology and behavior of these two tumors (i.e., minimally invasive, low grade disease diagnosed in 2001 vs. higher grade, more aggressive tumor in 2019) should the current clear cell carcinoma of GYN origin really be the same primary as the 2001 endometrial adenocarcinoma? |
Abstract a multiple primaries using 2018 Other Sites Solid Tumor Rule M10 as these tumors are more than one year apart. This represents endometrioid adenocarcinoma (8380/3 of C541) and 18 years later, clear cell Carcinoma (8310/3 consistent with GYN (C579) primary). |
Corpus uteri | N/A | 2020 |
|
|
20190096 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Colon: Is a colorectal anastomotic site recurrence reportable, that is, a second primary, per Rule M7, third bullet, if there is no mention of mucosa but the tumor is seen on colonoscopy? See Discussion. |
Colon, Rectosigmoid, and Rectum Multiple Primary Rule M7 states, Abstract multiple primaries when a subsequent tumor arises at the anastomotic site AND the subsequent tumor arises in the mucosa. We identified tumors at the anastomotic site of previous colon primaries with no mention of mucosa in any of the available documentation. Are there any other indicators that would imply a tumor arising in the mucosa, or do we need this specific statement to apply rule M7? Example: Patient has a history of invasive ascending colon adenocarcinoma diagnosed in October 2017 status post hemicolectomy followed by adjuvant chemo. There is no documentation of disease until August 2019 colonoscopy which shows a mass in the ileocolic anastomosis. Biopsy of the anastomotic site is positive for adenocarcinoma consistent with recurrence of the patient's colonic adenocarcinoma. There is no mention of mucosa found on the pathology report. |
Abstract a single primary using 2018 Colon Solid Tumor Rule M8 in the example provided as there is a subsequent tumor occurring less than 24 months in the anastomotic site, with the same histology and no mention of mucosa. The new tumor would be a new primary when it meets any one of the criteria noted in M7. The tumor does not have to be stated to have arisen in the mucosa. M8 also has three options to determine if a single primary is present. |
Colon | N/A | 2019 |
|
|
20140010 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is this one primary or two? Follicular lymphoma grade 1 (9695/3) on 8/23/12 from an abdominal lymph node. On 1/6/14 an abdominal lymph node biopsy showed diffuse large b cell lymphoma arising from high grade follicle center cell lymphoma. Patient has been on observation. | 1st primary, 8/23/12: Follicular lymphoma, grade 1 2nd primary, 1/6/14: Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma Apply the multiple primary rules twice for this case. The 2012 diagnosis is follicular lymphoma. There are two histologies in 2014: diffuse large b cell lymphoma and follicle center cell lymphoma diagnosed at the same time in the same location. This is one primary per rule M4. Then compare the 2012 diagnosis to the 2014 diagnosis. Per the Hematopoietic Database, follicular lymphoma (all types) transforms to DLBCL. Per Rule M10, the DLBCL would be a second primary. |
Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms | N/A | 2014 | |
|
|
20130101 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is plasma cell dyscrasia, favor MGUS vs. smoldering myeloma reportable? See Discussion. | The pathology report states, "plasma cell dyscrasia, favor MGUS vs. smoldering myeloma." The patient then died of a heart attack and no further information is available. If this is reportable, what histology code applies? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case is not reportable. Neither plasma cell dyscrasia nor MGUS are reportable. Smoldering myeloma was given as a possible diagnosis, but never confirmed.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx. |
Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms | N/A | 2013 |
An official website of the United States government
