SEER Inquiry System - Search

Colon, Rectosigmoid, and Rectum Multiple Primary Rule M7 states, Abstract multiple primaries when a subsequent tumor arises at the anastomotic site AND the subsequent tumor arises in the mucosa.

We identified tumors at the anastomotic site of previous colon primaries with no mention of mucosa in any of the available documentation. Are there any other indicators that would imply a tumor arising in the mucosa, or do we need this specific statement to apply rule M7?

Example: Patient has a history of invasive ascending colon adenocarcinoma diagnosed in October 2017 status post hemicolectomy followed by adjuvant chemo. There is no documentation of disease until August 2019 colonoscopy which shows a mass in the ileocolic anastomosis. Biopsy of the anastomotic site is positive for adenocarcinoma consistent with recurrence of the patient's colonic adenocarcinoma. There is no mention of mucosa found on the pathology report.

Collaborative Stage manual, page 26

Rule 4a: "always code size of the primary tumor, not size of the polyp, ulcer, cyst or distant metastasis."

Rule 4e: Additional rule for breast primaries: Example: Duct carcinoma in situ covering a 1.9 cm area with focal areas of invasive ductal carcinoma. Record the tumor size as 1.9 cm.

Code A280 is defined as a total removal of the ovarian tumor or removal of a single ovary (oophorectomy) WITH a hysterectomy. The unilateral removal of both the fallopian tube and ovary [(salpingo-) oophorectomy] is included in surgery codes A350-A370. However, the SEER Note under code A280 states, "Also use code A280 for current unilateral (salpingo-) oophorectomy with previous history of hysterectomy." Should this SEER Note read, "Also use code A280 for current unilateral oophorectomy with previous history of hysterectomy"?

Code 9920/3 is not included under rule M3. However, disease process knowledge would indicate that because the patient has an underlying AML subtype, the leukemia cutis is due to the AML cells that have migrated into the skin tissue. This appears to be a single advanced disease process essentially diagnosed simultaneously.

Code 46 reads "Adherent to other organs or sturcture, but no microscopic tumor found in adhesion(s)".

Would these examples be coded to 46?

Example 1: 7/04 Op findings: mass was adherent to duodenum without obvious invasion. Path: margins negative (no mention of duodenum). Case staged to pT3.

Example 2: Op findings: large mass involving cecum adherent to peritoneum & retroperitoneum. Path: invasion of pericolic soft tissue; margins negative (no metion of peritoneum & retroperitoneum). Case staged to pT3.

Clinically, the patient was felt to have a pineocytoma (borderline tumor) on imaging, but the subsequent biopsy proved a pineal germinoma (malignant tumor). The Date of Diagnosis instructions state to code the month, day and year the tumor was first diagnosed, clinically or microscopically, by a recognized medical practitioner, but it does not indicate whether differences in behavior alter the diagnosis date.

For brain and central nervous system tumors, should the diagnosis date be the first date a tumor is SEER reportable? Or should the diagnosis date for those tumors ultimately proven to be malignant, be the date the malignancy was diagnosed?

Classification of lung malignancies has undergone a change. The bronchioloalveolar carcinoma histology is being replaced by adenocarcinoma in situ and minimally invasive adenocarcinoma, using an evaluation of lepidic growth pattern in the tumor.

The final diagnosis is "adenocarcinoma in situ/BAC" and the comment states, "The findings in the current biopsy are most compatible with low grade malignant lesions which, in this sample, shows features of adenocarcinoma in situ (former bronchioloalveolar adenocarcinoma), given the proliferation of pneumocytes is limited to the alveolar lining with no evidence of invasion. However, classification of the lesion depends, per reference guidelines (Travis et al. J THOR ONCOL 2011 6,(2):244-275), on its size and its overall histologic features, to rule out the presence of an invasive component and therefore can only be performed upon examination of it in its entirety, upon resection." The radiation oncologist staged this T1N0M0, stage 1 BAC.

Chest x-ray: Multifocal pneumonia in left lung; possibility of masses in left lung not excluded.

Chest CT: 4 large ground-glass masses in LUL (largest 46mm); beginning of Tree-In-Bud appearance in LUL; 2 small ground-glass nodules in right lung.

Lung LUL biopsy: Adenocarcinoma, Solid Predominant.

No further information as patient did not want to discuss treatment options.

Per the AJCC book and CAnswer Forum, multifocal classification should be applied equally whether the lesions are in the same lobe OR in different ipsilateral lobes OR contralateral lobes, cT2b(m), cN0, cM0.

Cervix, loop electrosurgical excision procedure: Cervix at transformation zone with stratified mucin-producing intraepithelial lesion (SMILE). SMILE is present at the ectocervical margin. An immunohistochemical stain* for p16 demonstrates strong, diffuse positivity in the lesional epithelium. A mucicarmine stain is also positive in the lesional epithelium, supporting the diagnosis of SMILE.

Cavernous hemangiomas are typically described as vascular malformations in the brain. Per a search of the literature, cavernoma, cavernous hemangioma and cavernous malformation are all synonymous. There is some controversy as to whether cavernomas are vascular malformations or tumors. Cavernous hemangioma (9121/0) has been assigned a code in the ICD-O-3. The other terms are not even listed. Benign brain guidelines indicate that named tumors that have been assigned an ICD-O-3 code are reportable. Would we report a lesion that is labeled cavernous hemangioma but not one that is labeled carvernoma? Are cavernous malformations of the brain to be reported as benign brain tumors? The MP/H guidelines for benign brain tumors do not include blood vessel tumors in chart 1.

Are the following tumors reportable? If so, what is the primary site?

Example 1: Patient admitted for resection. Clinical diagnosis is left temporal cavernous hemangioma. Path diagnosis is cerebral cortex and white matter showing cavernoma.

Example 2: Patient admitted for resection with clinical diagnosis of parietal cavernous hemangioma. Path shows A-V malformation.

Example 3: Patient had T4 spinal tumor removed. Path showed cavernous angioma.

Reference: I&R 18109 and 23460