Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20220049 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many cases should be abstracted for a patient with 2022 wedge biopsy of right upper lobe acinar predominant lung adenocarcinoma and wedge biopsy of right lower lobe lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma if there is concern for diffuse spread throughout the lungs secondary to the lymphangitic carcinomatosis and possible diffuse pneumonic type of adenocarcinoma? See Discussion. |
Acinar predominant adenocarcinoma measures at least 12 mm and involves wedge biopsy margins, while the lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma measures 11 mm and does not involve the margins of that separate specimen. Pathologist also notes, “CT findings of diffuse coarse reticular nodular opacity, these findings may represent pneumonic type adenocarcinoma/diffuse pulmonary involvement or intrapulmonary metastasis. Both of these scenarios have the corresponding stages of pT4 (if thought to be ipsilateral) or M1a (if thought to also involve the contralateral lobe).” Patient declined any further treatment and transitioned to hospice before expiring less than 1 month after wedge biopsies. It is unclear if Rule M6 would apply to these two specimens with different subtypes since this scenario is not specifically addressed in the M rule definitions. |
Abstract two separate primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are two or more different subtypes/variants in Column 3 of Table 3 using Rule M6 in the Solid Tumor Rules (September 2021 Update). They represent two subtypes/variants of the same NOS histology. When coding histology, tissue from pathology takes precedence over imaging, including when stated as differential diagnoses based on the CT scan, as noted by the pathologist in this example. |
Lung | N/A | 2022 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20061022 | Reportability: Are glomus jugulare tumors reportable? |
Begining with cases diagnosed 2021, glomus jugulare tumor, NOS is reportable. It is listed in ICD-O-3.2 with a behavior code of /3. |
N/A | N/A | 2006 | |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20230003 | SEER Manual/Reportability--Ambiguous Terminology: Please clarify the reportability and relevant date ranges of the following ambiguous terminology: almost certainly, most certainly, and malignant until proven otherwise. See Discussion. |
SINQ 20180104 indicates, in the absence of further info, the terms “almost certainly” and “until proven otherwise” are NOT reportable. There is no date range provided for this answer. SINQ 20200027 indicates, in the absence of further info, the term “most certainly” IS reportable. There is no date range provided for this answer. SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2022 indicates, in the absence of further info, the terms “until proven otherwise” and “most certainly” ARE reportable. Essentially, we are hoping for an update of SINQ 20180104 due to 2022 reportability change. Clarification to the equivalence of “almost certainly” and “most certainly” would also be helpful. |
Use the ambiguous terminology list as a guide in the absence of additional information after reviewing all available information and consulting the physician who diagnosed and/or staged the tumor. Equivalent to "Diagnostic for" malignancy or reportable diagnosis
Not Equivalent to "Diagnostic for" malignancy or reportable diagnosis
We will update SINQ 20180104. |
N/A | N/A | 2023 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20091030 | MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Thyroid: How many primaries should be coded if there is a clinical diagnosis of recurrent thyroid carcinoma in 3/08 in a patient with a history of thyroid carcinoma diagnosed in 1995 with a 2002 clinical recurrence? See Discussion. | Thyroid carcinoma diagnosed in 11/95 and treated with total thyroidectomy (although path report only mentions the left lobe) and ablation. Elevated thyroglobulin level in 11/02, stated to have recurrent carcinoma and again treated with ablation. History on this case states patient had a near total thyroidectomy at diagnosis. Patient is seen again at a third hospital 3/08. Diagnosis again is recurrent carcinoma apparently because of a thyroid mass that is palpable. No treatment was performed and patient expired 4/08. Is this a new primary because of MP/H rule M10? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: The pathology report takes precedence over the other information when there is a discrepancy. Based on the information available, only the left thyroid lobe was removed 11/95.
Use the 2007 MP/H rules to evaluate new tumors. If the 3/08 diagnosis represents a new tumor, use the MP/H rules. If the diagnosis in 3/08 is not new tumor, the MP/H rules do not apply.
For this case, a new tumor in 3/08 would be a new primary using rule M10 for Other Sites. |
Thyroid | N/A | 2009 |
|
|
20170017 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Liver: How many primaries of the same site and histology are reported if tumors appear years apart but neither is surgically removed? See Discussion. |
Patient has an April 2009 biopsy proven diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma with a single liver mass in segment 4 that was treated with TACE and systemic chemotherapy. The treated lesion was stated to be stable in subsequent scans performed between 2010 and late 2015. December 2015 imaging identified a new mass in the left hepatic lobe consistent with cholangiocarcinoma. Is the 2015 tumor a new primary? In auditing files for expected (but not received) abstracts due from facilities, we've observed these types of cases not being consistently reported as multiple primaries. |
Abstract as a single primary. The 2009 liver tumor remained "stable" following treatment and the patient was never disease free. |
N/A | N/A | 2017 |
|
|
20140017 | Multiple Primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: 2012 path report for removal of an "axillary mass" which consists of 80% diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and 20% follicular lymphoma. In the original manual, Module 6 instructed us to code as a single primary, DLBCL. However, the multiple primary calculator says each disease is a separate primary. When I looked them up in the data base, I did not get an option to review a current manual. Can you please advise? |
Updated May 2026 The Multiple Primaries calculator is not applicable for this case. In this case, there are two NHLs in the same location at the same time. Apply Rule M4, this is one primary. Per Note 7 under Rule M4, go to Rules PH11and PH15 to assign primary site and histology. Rule PH11 states to code to the site of the origin (axillary mass) and to diffuse large b-cell lymphoma (9680/3) when DLBCL and any other non-Hodgkin lymphoma (follicular in this case) are present in the same location at the same time. Code as a single primary with histology Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.
|
Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms | N/A | 2014 | |
|
|
20110145 | MP/H Rules/Recurrence--Skin: If a pathologist does not review the August 2008 slides, how many primaries are accessioned for a patient diagnosed and treated for a dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans of the left upper inner arm in August 2008 who subsequently had a "recurrence" noted in October 2010 located in the scar of the original primary? | Abstract as a single primary: dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans [8832/3] of the left upper inner arm [C446] diagnosed in August 2008.
The rationale for this answer was provided by subject matter experts. The physician specialists for soft tissue and bone replied as follows:
Low-grade sarcomas tend to recur locally. Because this tumor recurred in same area, i.e. scar of prior surgery, and recurred in this period of time, this is a local recurrence. Dermatofibrosarcoma Protuberans is a low grade tumor which can recur many years following tumor excision. |
Skin | N/A | 2011 |
An official website of the United States government
