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 04:35 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20220021

Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Brain and CNS:  How many primaries are accessioned, and what M Rule applies, for a 2012 diagnosis of left cerebral transitional meningioma (9537/0) that transforms to an atypical meningioma (9539/1) in 2022? See Discussion.

The patient underwent a resection of the transitional meningioma in 2012, but residual tumor was left behind. The patient was on surveillance until imaging showed growth of the residual tumor. The resection in 2022 proved atypical meningioma.

Rule M2, the first rule that applies, indicates this situation represents a single primary (a single tumor). However, Rule M4 states the transformation from a benign meningioma to a borderline meningioma would only be a single primary if the meningioma was a NOS.

This patient has microscopic confirmation of a meningioma showing different subtypes/variants (listed in Column 3, Table 6). Should this be accessioned as multiple primaries based on the transformation and distinctly different histologies?

Non-malignant CNS rule M4 applies, this is a single primary. This scenerio is covered in Example 2: A meningioma 9530/0 transforms into an atypical meningioma 9539/1. 

 Brain and CNS N/A 2022
20031195 EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: Is this field coded to 15 [Tumor identified by needle biopsy for elevated PSA] when it is unknown whether or not a TRUS was done? See Description. Patient was admitted for radiation therapy for prostate cancer. H&P states that patient had elevated PSA. PE showed benign feeling prostate. Stage is clinical T1c. There is no mention of whether or not TRUS had been done. For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: EOD extension code 15 is correct for this case example. When there is no other documentation available, the AJCC stage may be used to determine extension. Prostate N/A 2003
20071071

MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: If the biopsy for a lung primary is actually taken from a pleural mass, can the default rule "when there are several lung masses and only one lesion is biopsied, consider this a single primary" apply? See Discussion.

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.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Do not assume the biopsy of the pleural mass is a biopsy of the lung. Apply the 2007 MP/H Lung rules to the lung tumors only. For this case, the pleural lesion would be a metastasis (outside the lung). The 2007 MP/H rules do not apply to metastatic lesions.

The 2007 MP/H Lung rules do not apply to pleura as a primary site. If the pleural lesion is primary, it should be abstracted as a separate primary.

 Lung N/A 2007
20071090 Multiplicity Counter/Type of Multiple Tumors--Breast: How are these data items coded for a single breast primary composed of both in situ and invasive disease when measurements are provided for both the invasive and in insitu components? See Discussion. Breast cancer, invasive duct carcinoma with DCIS, 1.3 cm, DCIS 3.7 cm. "The in situ carcinoma is very extensive in this lumpectomy. It is present contiguously from sides 1A through 1L sparing only the final 8 mm of medial margin. In situ and invasive carcinoma are prominently present along almost the entire superior margin." Is the mult counter 02 with Type of mult tumor 30, or one tumor? Because there are individual measurements for each of these tumors, code the multiplicity counter 02 [Two tumors present]. Code Type of Multiple Tumor as 30 [In situ and invasive]. Breast N/A 2007
20010128 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Bladder/Prostatic Urethra: When invasive TCC of the bladder and TCC in-situ of the prostatic urethra are diagnosed at the same time, are they reportable as two primaries? See discussion. There is no direct extension of tumor from the bladder to the urethra. According to the SEER rules for determining separate primaries, bladder (C67) and urethra (C68) are separate sites. However, it seems that TCC in the bladder and urethra should be reported as a single primary.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

This is one primary. Mucosal spread of in situ cancer from a hollow organ (bladder) into another hollow organ (prostatic urethra) is coded as a single primary.

This type of mucosal spread of tumor is sometimes referred to as "intramucosal extension" or " in situ component extending to." Mucosal spread can also be expressed as a statement of an invasive component in one organ with adjacent or associated in situ carcinoma in a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium.

This case represents an invasive bladder tumor with in situ extension to the prostatic urethra. A tumor that is breaking down can be invasive in the center with in situ cancer at its margins. Occasionally, the in situ margin can move into a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium.

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 2001
20031194

Terms of involvement--Lung: Is "intense uptake" described on a PET scan an indication of involvement? See Description.

We are seeing increasing use of PET scans as diagnostic tools for cancer. PET scans use different terminology than the ambiguous terms listed in the EOD manual. Could we please have guidelines for interpreting PET scans?

Example: Patient with right lung cancer. PET scan showed intense uptake in the mediastinum and in the hilum. Can we code "intense uptake" as involvement of mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes?

 Do not interpret "intense uptake" as involvement. Look for a statement of involvement or other terminology, such as "highly suspicious," "strongly suspicious for" malignancy, involvement, etc. Lung N/A 2003
20100014 Reportability: Are there criteria other than a pathologist or clinician's statement that a registrar can use to determine reportability of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST)? See Discussion.

Per SINQ 20091021 and 20021151, GIST cases are not reportable unless they are stated to be malignant. A pathologist or clinician must confirm the diagnosis of cancer. There are cases that are not stated to be malignant in the pathology report or confirmed as such by a clinician; however, these cases do have information that for other primary sites would typically be taken into consideration when determining reportability. The final diagnosis on the pathology report for all 16 cases is "GIST." The additional comment(s) for each of the 16 different cases is reported below. Are any of the following cases reportable?

1) Pathology report indicates that the bulk of the tumor is submucosal. It extends through the muscularis propria and abuts the serosa.

2) Pathology report states tumor extends to serosal surface of transverse colon, but not into muscularis propria. CD 117 and CD 34 are positive.

3) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades through the gastric wall to the serosal surface.

4) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades pericolic fat tissue.

5) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate omental caking.

6) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate hepatic metastases. Hepatic metastases are not biopsied.

7) Tumor stated to be unresectable and extends into pancreas. Chemotherapy given.

8) Pathology report states tumor is low to intermediate grade and involves serosal (visceral peritoneum).

9) Tumor size is 17.5 cm. Pathology report states "malignant risk".

10) Pathology report states tumor "into muscularis propria" or tumor "involves muscularis propria" or "infiltrates into muscularis propria".

11) Pathology report states, "high malignant potential; omentum inv by tumor." It is not stated in path report or final diagnosis to be malignant GIST.

12) Pathology report states that tumor arises from wall of small bowel and extends into thin serosal surface.

13) Pathology report states minimal invasion of lamina propria; does not penetrate muscularis propria.

14) Pathology report states, "high mitotic activity >10/50 HPF; high risk for aggressive behavior; moderate malignant potential."

15) Pathology report states tumor size is >5 cm. Intermediate risk for aggressive behavior; CD117+ KIT exon 11+.

16) Pathology report states "high risk of malignancy."

 For GIST to be reportable, the final diagnosis on the pathology report must definitively state that the GIST is malignant, or invasive, or in situ. Case 6 is the only exception. It would be reportable assuming the scan actually states "hepatic metastases." Based only on the information provided, none of the other examples are reportable. The type of extension and/or invasion mentioned in the other examples are not sufficient to confirm malignancy. Borderline neoplasms can extend and invade, but do not metastasize. Only malignant neoplasms metastasize. N/A N/A 2010
20000495 EOD Fields--All Sites: Is EOD information limited to what is available exactly two months from the day of diagnosis?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

EOD should include all information available within four months of diagnosis in the absence of disease progression or through completion of surgery(ies) in first course of treatment, whichever is longer.

Mets known to have developed after EOD was established should be excluded.

 N/A N/A 2000
20130111 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a 2008 diagnosis of extralymphatic follicular lymphoma in the breast is subsequently diagnosed in 2011 with ocular follicular lymphoma? See Discussion.

The patient was diagnosed with follicular lymphoma in the breast in 2008. Per notes, there was no evidence of disease again until 2011 when the patient presented with ocular lymphoma. The physician stated this was part of the same disease process as the prior breast diagnosis. The bone marrow was not involved in either case.

Is this a single primary (recurrence) of follicular lymphoma? Or are these multiple primaries because they arise in different extralymphatic sites?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Accession a single primary, follicular lymphoma [9690/3] of the breast diagnosed in 2008 per Rule M2.

Accession a single primary when there is a single histology. This is a recurrence of the patient's 2008 follicular lymphoma.

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
20130110 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a diagnosis of "coagulable state" reportable?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

The term "coagulable state" is not reportable. This is not a a neoplasm. The term means capable of coagulating or capable of becoming thick. There are neoplasms, such as polycythemia vera, in which the blood becomes thick; however, you must have an actual reportable diagnosis in order to accession the case.

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