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: 10/08/2026 09:18 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20071051 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: Please clarify the multiple primary rule M6 and the explanatory note that states when there is a single tumor in each lung, they are to be reported as multiple primaries unless stated or proven to be metastasis. See Discussion. Single tumor in left lung, single tumor in right lung. The rules take you to M6. Suppose the tumor in left lung is biopsied and there is a physician statement that right lung tumor is metastatic from left lung tumor. The note under M6 is "When there is a single tumor in each lung, abstract as multiple primaries unless stated or proven to be metastatic." In this case, is it a single primary or multiple primaries?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

When there is a single tumor in one lung and a single tumor in the other lung, apply rule M6 and abstract as multiple primaries. Use this rule whenever there is a single tumor in each lung, even when neither tumor is biopsied or resected.

This rule is unique to lung. Our physician advisors emphasized that it is very unlikely that a single tumor in one lung could be metastatic from a single tumor in the opposite lung. Therefore, the default is to abstract as multiple primaries.

The note at M6 means that there must be proof that one tumor is metastatic in order to abstract as a single primary. For example, a biopsy of the tumor proving that it is metastatic. An opinion or belief that one tumor is metastatic is not sufficient. In the absence of proof, use rule M6 and abstract as multiple primaries.

A list of MP/H clarifications will be available. This issue will be included on the list.

 Lung N/A 2007
20031143

Ambiguous terminology/EOD-Extension: Is the term "within" a term of involvement in coding extent of disease? See Description.

For example: a kidney tumor is described as "completely encased within the renal capsule with no extension into perirenal fat." Does this mean the renal capsule has been invaded (extension code 20) or that the tumor is totally contained within an area surrounded by the renal capsule (extension code 10)?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The term "within" is not one of the listed ambiguous terms for EOD. Determine extent of involvement from the context in which "within" appears.

In the example, "Encased" is an ambiguous term meaning not involved. Code extension for the example to 10 [Invasive cancer confined to kidney cortex and/or medulla].

 N/A N/A 2003
20061129 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Head & Neck: How many primaries are abstracted if a patient has bilateral involvement of tonsils with the same histology (e.g. squamous cell carcinoma)? See Discussion. Patient was initially found to have mass on right tonsil. Biopsy of right tonsil on June 16 showed invasive carcinoma, favor squamous cell. On July 17 patient underwent right neck dissection, radical resection of right tonsil tumor and left tonsillectomy. Right tonsil showed squamous cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated. Left tonsil showed squamous cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated. Microscopic report stated: Right tonsil: Invasion of deep peritonsillar tissue and skeletal muscle. Sections of left tonsil demonstrate squamous cell ca focally distributed in the tonsil, predominantly in situ, but with focal microscopic invasion. Path staged each tonsil specimen. Right tonsil was T2N1. Left tonsil was T1Nx.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code as two primaries. Squamous cell carcinoma diagnosed in both left and right tonsils are multiple primaries unless one is stated to be metastatic from the other.

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.

 Head & Neck N/A 2006
20190098

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are there and how is histology coded for a breast primary showing encapsulated papillary carcinoma and Paget disease of the nipple? See Discussion.

Patient has a 1.7 cm encapsulated papillary carcinoma staged as pTis located 2 cm from the nipple and Paget disease of the nipple on mastectomy pathology.

There is no indication in Table 3: Specific Histologies, NOS/NST, and Subtypes/Variants that encapsulated papillary carcinoma is a subtype of ductal carcinoma. Rule M8 notes that if the histology of the underlying tumor is any histology OTHER THAN duct or subtypes of duct, one should continue through the rules. But if M9 applies to this case, then incidence reporting will be increased in comparison to prior years.

Abstract multiple primaries when there is Paget disease (8540/3) and an underlying tumor that is not duct, in this case, encapsulated papillary carcinoma (8504/2) using Rule M9 of the 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules.

 Breast N/A 2019
20021050 EOD-Extension--Pancreas: If the tumor involvement for a case falls between two different regional extension codes, should we code to the lesser of the two codes or should we code extension as unknown? See discussion.

Example 1: CT scan description: Mass in the head of the pancreas. The duodenum is "surrounded" by tumor. Should we code extension to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS] or 99 [unknown] because the extension code could be further than 40. It could be 44 [extension to duodenum].

Example 2: CT scan description: Mass in region of pancreatic head and "root" of superior mesenteric artery consistent with pancreatic cancer. Should we code extension to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS] or 99 [unknown] because the extension code could be further than 40? It could be 54 [extension to major blood vessels].

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

In both examples, code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS]. Choose the lowest of a known possible extension code over an unknown code.

 Pancreas N/A 2002
20130081 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient is clinically stated to have Stage III follicular lymphoma following a diagnosis suspicious for B-cell lymphoma and is subsequently diagnosed with large B-cell lymphoma? See Discussion.

01/27/2012 R neck mass FNA: Suspicious for B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

02/17/2012 Cervical node bx: In situ involvement by follicular-like B-cells of uncertain significance +CD10. Two other cervical biopsies show infarcted, extensively necrotic lymphoid tissue highly suspicious for B-cell lymphoma.

03/20/2012 Bone marrow: Low grade B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder with plasmacytic differential.

04/18/2012 Medical Oncology treats patient for Stage III follicular lymphoma.

10/16/2012 Cervical LN core bx: CD10+ large B-cell lymphoma.

Should Rule M4 (single primary) and Module 6, Rule PH11 apply to this case?

Updated May 2026

This case should be accessioned as two primaries: follicular lymphoma [9690/3] diagnosed 02/17/2012 and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3] diagnosed 10/16/2012 per Rule M10. This patient was diagnosed with a chronic neoplasm (follicular lymphoma) followed later by an acute neoplasm (DLBCL) after the completion of the initial clinical workup for the chronic neoplasm.

The follicular lymphoma was initially diagnosed on 02/17/2012. The cervical node biopsies were "highly suspicious for B-cell lymphoma" [9591/3]. While "suspicious" is a reportable ambiguous term used to accession cases, suspicious cytologies are not SEER reportable and, therefore, the diagnosis date cannot be 01/27/2012. The histology of the first primary would be updated to 9690/3 [follicular lymphoma] based on the Medical Oncology note on 04/18/2012 that confirmed the histology was follicular lymphoma and the patient was being treated for such.

The diagnosis of DLBCL was made 8 months later. Rule M4 cannot apply to this case because the follicular lymphoma and DLBCL were not diagnosed in the same biopsy specimen. Rule M4 only applies when the two non-Hodgkin lymphomas are diagnosed in the same biopsy specimen.

 Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms N/A 2013
20190054

Update to current manual/Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Brain and CNS: Table 6 (Non-Malignant CNS Equivalent Terms and Definitions) lists as a subtype/variant of craniopharyngioma 9350/1. This is not a valid histology per the ICD-O-3 or the 2018 ICD-O-3 Update Table. Is this actually supposed to read, ?

Adamantinomatous craniopharyngioma (9351/1) is a subtype of craniopharygioma. We will correct the Non-Malignant CNS Solid Tumor Rules in the next update.

 Brain and CNS N/A 2019
20190050

Reportability/Melanoma: Is evolving melanoma reportable with a Clark's level and Breslow's thickness are cited in the pathology report? See Discussion.

How do we interpret the reportability of the following: The histological and immunohistochemical findings are most consistent with an early-evolving malignant melanoma, superficial spreading type, with Clark's level II and maximal Breslow thickness 0.33 mm, arising in association with an atypical nevus. Since a Clark's level and Breslow's thickness are included, is this reportable? Is this really an evolving melanoma?

As of 01/01/2021, early or evolving melanoma in situ, or any other early or evolving melanoma, is reportable.

 Melanoma N/A 2019
20190045

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple Primaries--Head & Neck: How many primaries are accessioned and what M Rule applies when a patient is diagnosed with a right lateral tongue (C023) tumor in 2016 that was verrucous carcinoma (8051), followed by a new left tongue border (C021) tumor in 2019 that was squamous cell carcinoma, NOS (8070)? See Discussion.

According to the Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules in place at the time of the 2016 diagnosis, verrucous carcinoma was listed as a specific type of squamous carcinoma (Chart 1). However, in the current Solid Tumor Rules, verrucous carcinoma is not listed in Table 4 (Tumors of Oral Cavity and Mobile Tongue) either as a specific histology or as a specific subtype/variant of squamous carcinoma. The only subtype/variant listed for these sites is acantholytic squamous cell carcinoma (8075).

Verrucous carcinoma is not listed in Table 4, making it unclear if it should be a different histology for these specified sites. However, verrucous carcinoma is listed as a specific subtype/variant of squamous carcinoma for other sites (e.g., Table 3).

Accession a single primary based on the 2018 Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rule M13 as none of the other rules apply to the situation.

Not all histology codes are contained in the tables in the Solid Tumor Rules as they list the more common histologies. Verrucous carcinoma is a subtype of squamous cell carcinoma according to Table 3 of the Rules.

Solid Tumor rule tables are based on 4th Ed WHO Blue Books. Verrucous SCC is not included in oral cavity/mobile tongue chapter.

 Head & Neck N/A 2019
20120088

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Head & Neck: How many primaries are accessioned and what rule applies if a patient has an extensive tumor in the left ethmoid sinus and a separate tumor in the right maxillary sinus? See Discussion.

MRI and CT Neck Impression: Extensive tumor mass which likely originated within the left ethmoid sinus and extends intracranially via the cribriform plate into the anterior cranial fossa. There is involvement of the left orbit and extension into the superior aspect of the left maxillary sinuses as well as the nose. Second enhancing lesion within the right maxillary sinus measures almost 2 cm. The second mass within the floor of the right maxillary sinus, with similar imaging characteristics, is consistent with malignant involvement.

The patient has an extensive ethmoid sinus tumor, biopsy showed squamous cell carcinoma. The ethmoid sinus is not a paired organ. The patient also has a small maxillary tumor with no histologic confirmation, Hem/Oncology chart notes state the right maxillary sinus mass is carcinoma. The maxillary sinus is a paired organ.

Per the AJCC Manual (AJCC Manual for Staging, 7th edition, page 70), both the ethmoid and maxillary sinuses are further identified by their laterality (left and right). Why aren't the ethmoid sinuses a paired organ for the MP/H Rules? What MP rule applies to this case?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession a single primary.

The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). Go to the Head and Neck MP rules after determining the histology of each tumor - (8070/3 [squamous cell carcinoma] and 8010/3 [carcinoma, NOS]) because site specific rules have been developed for this primary.

Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. Abstract a single when one tumor is carcinoma, NOS [8010] and another tumor is a specific carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma [8070] because the ethmoid sinus (site of origin) is not a paired site per the MP/H rules.

We will review the list of paired organs for the next edition of the MP/H Rules.

 Head & Neck N/A 2012