Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20150058 | MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries: Is this counted as one or two primaries?
Patient is diagnosed with SCC esophageal cancer. Work-up reveals a lung nodule. Lung FNA (cytology) is read by the pathologist as SCC, favor metastatic esophageal SCC. However, the managing physicians are treating the patient as two separate primaries. |
If the patient is being managed and treated as a case of primary lung cancer, report the lung diagnosis as a separate primary. |
N/A | N/A | 2015 | |
|
|
20100096 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a 9/30/10 biopsy diagnoses follicular lymphoma, grade 1 and the patient is subsequently diagnosed on a 10/11/10 biopsy with large B-cell lymphoma which is stated to be a transformation of the prior lymphoma? | Updated May 2026 Per Rule M11, this case is to be accessioned as two primaries: follicular lymphoma, grade 1 [9695/3] and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) [9680/3]. The case represents a chronic neoplasm (follicular lymphoma, grade) and an acute neoplasm (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma) which was diagnosed after the initial clinical workup of the chronic disease was completed and there is documentation of two biopsies, one confirming the chronic disease and the other confirming the acute disease. |
Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms | N/A | 2010 | |
|
|
20150057 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is this diagnosis reportable? If this neoplasm originated in the spinal cord, it is reportable, correct?
Specimen is described as a 'spinal cord mass.' The final diagnosis is 'fragments of adipose tissue demonstrating vascular proliferations consistent with angiolipoma. No histologic evidence of malignancy.' The microscopic description says: Sections of the spinal mass reveal bone, cartilage, fibrous tissue and adipose tissue. The adipose tissue demonstrates increased vascularity with thin walled blood vessels seen with islands of delicate fibrous stroma. The histologic findings are compatible with fragments of angiolipoma. |
The neoplasm is reportable if it originated in the spinal cord or is intradural (within the spinal dura; spinal nerve roots are intradural). If there is not enough information to determine the exact site of origin, do not report the case. |
Brain and CNS | N/A | 2015 | |
|
|
20160047 | Reportability--Eye: Is conjunctival intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN III) from an excision of the left eye conjunctiva reportable? |
Conjuctival intraepithelial neoplasia grade III (CIN III) is reportable. Intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III, is listed in ICD-O-3 as /2. It is reportable for sites other than skin. |
N/A | N/A | 2016 | |
|
|
20200012 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned for a patient diagnosed with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) with ring sideroblasts in 2005, and stated to have progressed to high risk disease/early evolving acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in 09/2019? See Discussion. |
The bone marrow biopsy proved bone marrow with blasts comprising 15-19%. Neither the pathologist nor the physician specifically diagnosed this as AML, calling this only high risk disease or early evolving AML prior to starting the patient on Vidaza. No further information can be obtained from the pathologist or the physician for this case. Should this early evolving AML be accessioned as an additional primary per Rule M10, or is this the same MDS that is now high risk as the blast count is up to 19%, but has not yet reached the threshold of 20% blasts usually required for AML per the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Database? |
Abstract a single primary as we do not abstract early/evolving AML. This is still one primary until there is a confirmed diagnosis of AML. |
Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms | N/A | 2020 |
|
|
20200006 | Reportability--Retina: Is a diagnosis of retinal astrocytoma reportable? See Discussion. |
There is no specific ICD-O-3 code for a which resulted in abstractors assigning the malignant astrocytoma, NOS code. These lesions were previously called but we are seeing the new terminology more frequently. |
Report retinal astrocytoma. The WHO Classification of Tumors of the Eye, 4th edition, lists astrocytoma, NOS as 9400/3 with astrocytic hamartoma of the retina as a synonym. You may receive a site/type edit (IF25) which can be overridden. The changes in terminology, codes, etc. proposed in WHO 4th Ed Eye book were implemented for cases diagnosed 1/1/2018 forward. Apply this to retina astrocytomas and do not accession cases diagnosed with this histology prior to 1/1/2018. |
N/A | N/A | 2020 |
|
|
20200002 | Reportability/In situ--Prostate: Has there been a change in reportability for prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN III) (C619)? The 2018 SEER Manual notes: Collection stopped effective with cases diagnosed 01/01/2001 and later; however, on the casefinding list effective 10/01/2019, code D07.5, carcinoma in situ of prostate, is listed as reportable. |
PIN III is not reportable in accordance with the 2018 SEER Manual; however, carcinoma in situ of the prostate is reportable as they represent different histology codes. The casefinding list is used to search for reportable cases and is not the same as a reportable list. |
Prostate | N/A | 2020 | |
|
|
20020003 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can you code the tumor size if you have the aggregate size given for two or more tumor masses? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No. Never code the aggregate size in the Size of Primary Tumor field when the pieces removed come from TWO OR MORE tumors. If there is a clinical statement regarding the size of two or more tumors, code this field to the size of the largest tumor.
The aggregate size can only be used to code the Size of Primary Tumor field when the PATHOLOGIST estimates the size of the tumor from the pieces of ONE tumor removed by the surgeon. |
N/A | N/A | 2002 | |
|
|
20190097 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries are there and what M rules apply for multiple lung histologies in the left lower lobe (LLL) and right upper lobe (RUL) of the lungs? See Discussion. |
There is one tumor in the left lung that is acinar adenocarcinoma, 8551/3, and two tumors in the right lung, one of which is 8551/3 and a separate one that is mucinous adenocarcinoma 8253/3. 3/21/18- left robotic video assisted thoracoscopy with left lower lobe lobectomy: 2.5 cm adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant, margins negative 11/3/18- right upper lobe lobectomy: invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma, 1.7 cm, invasive adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant, 0.6 cm, margins negative If you start by comparing the 8551/3 left lung tumor to the 8253/3 right lung tumor, M6 applies and these would be separate primaries (seq 01 and seq 02). How would we handle the third tumor, 8551/3, in the right lung? Seq 01: 3/21/18- left lung primary 8551/3 Seq 02: 11/3/18- right lung primary 8253/3 Is the right lung tumor 8551/3 a third primary, and if so, which M rule applies? I cannot find a rule that seems to fit completely. Rule M6 may apply if you were comparing the right 8551/3 tumor to the seq 02 8253/3 tumor. But how would you know to use the seq 02 histology code 8253/3 or seq 01 histology code 8551/3 for the comparison? I think M9 was designed for situations where you have multiple tumors involving both lungs but they didn't biopsy all of them. Is that correct? If so, then we would be able to bypass M9. Would M11 apply since we already took care of two of the tumors with rule M6? If M11 doesn't apply, it seems like you would get to M14. |
Abstract two primaries applying Rules M6 and M9 s follows. First, assign a histology for each tumor. --LLL adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant 8551/3 --RUL invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma 8253/3 --RUL invasive adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant 8551/3 For the RUL, this is two primaries according to Rule M6, to subtypes in Column 3 of the histology table. For the LLL and RUL, this represents the same primary as these are the same histology according to Rule M9. |
Lung | N/A | 2019 |
|
|
20031177 | EOD-Lymph Nodes--Colon: Are deposits of carcinoma in the pericolic fat still coded as lymph nodes when the pathology report states, "there is a high likelihood that these represent foci of venous invasion"? See Description. | Patient underwent resection for adenocarcinoma of the rectum. Path final diagnosis stated: "Regional lymph nodes: met carcinoma in 18 of 43 lymph nodes. Pathologic stage (AJCC/UICC 6th edition): pT3, V2, pN2, pMx. See comment." Path comment: "There are additional macroscopic stellate deposits of carcinoma in the pericolic soft tissue. According to the 6th edition of the AJCC staging manual, these should be designated as "V2," indicating that there is a high likelihood that these represent foci of venous invasion." |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Each grossly detectable nodule in the pericolonic fat is counted as one regional lymph node. When the number of deposits is not mentioned, code Number of Regional Nodes Positive as 97 [Positive nodes but number of positive nodes not specified]. Unless the procedure is documented as a dissection, code Number of Regional Nodes Examined as 98 [Regional lymph nodes surgically removed but number of lymph nodes unknown/not stated and not documented as samping or dissection; nodes examined, but number unknown]. |
Colon | N/A | 2003 |
An official website of the United States government
