Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20190041 | Reportability/Primary Site--Gastrointestinal (GI) Tract: Is a gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) with a single nodule in the small intestine (C17_) and a nodule in the stomach (C16_) reportable per the 2018 SEER Coding Manual reporting instructions for GIST due to the multiple foci or do the multiple foci need to be in the same organ to be reportable? See Discussion. |
Example: Small intestine wedge resection with GIST, 1.8 cm in mid small intestine, single nodule. Stomach nodule biopsy: GIST, 0.3 cm. Pathology report comment section indicates the gastric GIST is not staged due to the small size and incidental nature. |
Report the GIST in the small intestine. The 2018 SEER Manual says to report GIST when there are multiple foci and to code the primary site to the site where the malignancy originated. Use text fields to record the details, including the stomach nodule. |
2019 |
|
|
20000269 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Is an in situ tumor followed by another in situ tumor in the same location a new primary? See discussion. |
Example: Six months after an in situ lesion was excised from the buccal mucosa, another in situ lesion was excised from the same area of the buccal mucosa with no mention of it being recurrent. |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: Code as a second primary if the second in situ tumor occurred more than 2 months after the first, and it is not referred to as recurrent by the clinician or pathologist. There are no special rules for determining the number of primaries when an in situ lesion follows an in situ. 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. |
2000 |
|
|
20190042 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple Primaries--Breast: Is a breast resection showing invasive mucinous carcinoma in a single tumor with associated ductal carcinoma in situ and additional findings of a background of lobular carcinoma in situ single or multiple primaries and which M rule applies? See Discussion |
Example: Right breast core biopsy found ductal carcinoma in situ in the upper outer quadrant. Subsequent resection has a final diagnosis of invasive mucinous carcinoma, grade 1, measuring approximately 7 mm, with close margins. See staging summary. Gross description mentions only the primary tumor with associated marker clip from previous biopsy. Breast Cancer Staging Summary lists (testing and margins removed for brevity): Procedure type: Lumpectomy. Specimen laterality: Right. Tumor size: 7mm. Histologic type: Invasive mucinous carcinoma. Histologic grade (Nottingham histologic score): Grade 1, (score 5/9). Tumor focality: Single focus. Lymph-vascular invasion: Not identified. Treatment effect: No known therapy. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): Present. Architectural pattern: Cribriform. Nuclear grade: Grade 1. Necrosis: Not identified. Calcifications: Not identified. Estimated size/extent of DCIS: Spanning an area measuring 15mm. Pathologic stage: pT1b, pNx. (AJCC 8th ed). Distant metastasis: Not applicable. Additional findings: Background lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), flat epithelial atypia (FEA), and atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH). |
Apply Breast Solid Tumor Rule M3, abstract a single tumor when there is a single tumor, as there is reference to the primary, single 7 mm tumor. Apply Rule H7 and code the invasive histology only, mucinous carcinoma, when both invasive and in situ components are present. The rules state: Do not use Table 2 Histology Combination Codes for tumors with both invasive and in situ behavior. |
2019 |
|
|
20051127 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is an "intradural extramedullary schwannoma (neurilemoma)" of the spine reportable? See Discussion. | Example: Pt underwent laminectomy and excision of intradural extramedullary tumor. Is there a default decision for tumors described as intradural extramedullary tumors, NOS? |
For cases diagnosed 2011 and later: A spinal "intradural extramedullary schwannoma (neurilemoma)" is reportable. This schwannoma originated in the spinal nerve root, C720.
See #2 under Reportability in the Data Collection Answers from the CoC, NPCR, SEER Technical Workgroup, http://www.seer.cancer.gov/registrars/data-collection.html#reportability |
2005 |
|
|
20200042 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Brain and CNS: How is the histology coded when the diagnosis comment for a posterior fossa tumor resection states: Taken together, these findings are indicative of medulloblastoma with extensive nodularity? See Discussion. |
Example: Posterior fossa tumor resection final diagnosis was medulloblastoma, WHO Grade IV. The diagnosis comment notes the current tumor resection reveals large irregular reticulin-free nodules with streams of neoplastic cells in a fibrillary background in association with narrow reticulin-rich internodular strands of poorly differentiated neoplastic cells. Taken together, these findings are indicative of medulloblastoma with extensive nodularity. The diagnosis comment provided only one histology. Per the 2018 Solid Tumor Manual, Malignant CNS, Priority Order for Using Documentation to Identify Histology instructions, an addendum or comment has priority over the final diagnosis. Although indicative is not listed on any ambiguous terminology list, is this an ambiguous diagnosis that must be ignored? Or does the diagnosis comment in this case provide a single, specific diagnosis of medulloblastoma with extensive nodularity? |
Code as medulloblastoma, nodular (9471/3) based on the findings from both the comment and final diagnosis. |
2020 |
|
|
20200065 | Tumor Size/Corpus uteri--Endometrium: Is clinical tumor size coded to the endometrial stripe measurement or thickening in the endometrium. See Discussion. |
Example: Pelvic ultrasound-19 mm thickened endometrium; bilateral ovaries unremarkable. Case was coded to 19 mm for clinical tumor size. I have always been taught NOT to use "endometrial stripe" or "thickening" measurements for clinical size. Can you confirm. Also, is this noted on any of the SEER resources such as SEER training or in the SEER tumor size guidelines? I wanted to point them out to a reference if it is available. |
We consulted with an expert GYN pathologist. He confirmed our thinking that endometrial stripe or thickening does not represent clinical tumor size. We will add this to a future edition of the SEER manual for reference. |
2020 |
|
|
20091025 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: How should we handle urinary tract tumors diagnosed before the MP rules went into effect when determining the number of primaries to report primaries? How do you apply rules M5, M6 and M8 when an invasive bladder tumor and other urinary site tumors occur before and after the effective date of these rules? See Discussion. |
Example: Patient with a prior in situ carcinoma of the bladder in 11/89, left ureter papillary transition cell carcinoma in situ diagnosed in 5/05, left renal pelvis papillary transition cell carcinoma in situ diagnosed in 8/07 and invasive bladder carcinoma diagnosed in 3/08. When an invasive bladder tumor and other urinary site tumors occur, do you stop with the bladder at rule M5 and M6 never reaching M8? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Use the 2007 MP/H rules for urinary sites to assess diagnoses made in 2007-2014. Use the multiple tumors module to compare a diagnosis in 2007-2014 to an earlier diagnosis. For the example above, start by comparing the left renal pelvis diagnosis in 8/07 to the earlier left ureter primary diagnosed 5/05. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M8. The 8/07 renal pelvis diagnosis is not a new primary. Next, compare the 3/08 bladder tumor to the earlier left ureter primary diagnosed 5/05. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M5. The 3/08 bladder tumor is a new primary because it is an invasive diagnosis following an in situ diagnosis. Use only the more recent of the two earlier urinary diagnoses for comparison. Do not compare the 2007 and later diagnoses to the 11/89 in situ bladder primary in this case. |
2009 |
|
|
20200039 | EOD 2018/Summary Stage 2018--GIST: How should Extent of Disease (EOD) and Summary Stage be coded for a multifocal gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST)? See Discussion. |
Example: Patient is found to have a 9.4 cm GIST in the jejunum and 2 cm GIST in the stomach during resection, neither stated to be outright malignant. Similar to the instruction in SINQ 20190041, this case is coded as a malignant jejunal primary due to multifocal tumor. However, it is unclear how to account for the stomach tumor, or any other multifocal tumor for GIST, when coding EOD and Summary Stage. |
For this case, report each GIST diagnosis separately. This differs from SINQ 20190041 because in that case the stomach GIST was incidental and measured only 0.3 cm. Reporting these separately means that each one is no longer a multifocal tumor. If there is no other indication of malignancy for these, they would not be reportable if diagnosed in 2020 or earlier. For cases diagnosed 2021 or later, all GIST are reportable. Report this as two primaries. Use the new GIST schema for EOD and assign EOD Primary Tumor 100 for each. There is no mention of extension outside the primary site. Summary Stage is Localized for each. |
2020 |
|
|
20230074 | Extent of Disease/EOD Regional Nodes--Small Intestine: For an ileal/jejunal neuroendocrine primary, how should mesenteric soft tissue deposits (less than 2 cm) be collected in Extent of Disease (EOD) Staging? See Discussion. |
Example: Patient is diagnosed with grade 1 well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor of the ileum, confirmed on ileocolic resection in 2023. The final diagnosis is a 2.8 cm ileal mass, with focal lymph-vascular invasion and a single 0.6 cm tumor deposit within mesenteric fat; primary tumor completely resected with widely negative margins and 10 regional nodes negative for malignancy. According to AJCC, mesenteric masses less than 2 cm should be stated in the pathology report as being present and collected by registrars but do not affect stage. EOD Regional Nodes has a code for large mesenteric masses greater than 2 cm only. How should we record these smaller tumor deposits if they are not supposed to affect stage? |
Do not code 500 for involvement of the mesentery unless the mesentery is specifically stated to be involved (and we don't have that information). We need more information on this case to assign EOD primary tumor. EOD Regional Nodes would be 000 per AJCC. |
2023 |
|
|
20190005 | Primary Site--Bladder: Does instruction #4 in the Urinary Sites Solid Tumor Rules Instructions for Coding Primary Site apply to a mix of in situ and invasive urothelial tumors? Instruction #4: Code Urinary System NOS C689 when there are multiple non-contiguous tumors in multiple organs within the urinary system. See Discussion. |
Example: Patient has multiple biopsies with final diagnosis of in situ papillary urothelial carcinoma in the prostatic urethra and invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma in the bladder. How should primary site be coded in this type of mixed in situ and invasive situation? |
Code Urinary System NOS C689 for this case since there are two separate urinary sites involved. Apply instruction #4 when there is a mix of in situ and invasive urothelial tumors. |
2019 |
An official website of the United States government
