SEER Inquiry System - Search

The patient was incidentally diagnosed with cancer on a prophylactic mastectomy, so there are no positive imaging findings to correlate the number of tumors/masses. The final diagnosis was invasive tubular carcinoma, and referred to the CAP Protocol. The CAP notes: However, it does not specify whether the single contiguous focus also includes the in situ component. The CAP goes on to note DCIS was present: The gross description does not provide any indication of either a single or multiple tumors/masses/lesions, though it was referred to as "Lesion 1" in the gross description with no indication of other lesions.

The format of the CAP Protocol frequently does not specify whether the DCIS is a separate measured tumor, or if it is a component of the invasive tumor. This makes it difficult to determine whether the DCIS should be a separate primary when the invasive tumor is not also a type of ductal carcinoma. Per both the 2007 MP/H and 2018 Solid Tumor Rules, an invasive tubular carcinoma and a ductal carcinoma in situ would be multiple primaries if they were multiple tumors. Should we default to Rule M1: Abstract a single primary when it is not possible to determine if there is a single or multiple tumors? Or should we assume these are separate tumors because they were both sized, the focality only described a single invasive tumor, and the tumors are not both ductal carcinomas?

The patient was diagnosed with non-small carcinoma of the lung by needle biopsy of the right upper lobe Feb. 2, 2001. History revealed that CT performed prior to needle bx showed 2 right sided lung lesions and right hilar adenopathy. Chest x-ray following needle bx showed irregular opacity within the RML appears unchanged. Soft tissue prominence in the azygos region, possibly related LN enlargement. This is the only information available.

Should we code extension as 30 [localized, NOS]?

The patient was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, underwent treatment and subsequently was in remission. The patient later presented with lesions on the scalp and thorax lesions. The final diagnosis on the pathology report for the scalp lesion was multiple myeloma with plasmablastic transformation (high grade). The physician states this is an aggressive, recurrent multiple myeloma with multiple large plasmacytomas involving the scalp and thorax.

The patient was diagnosed with intervertebral disc plasmacytoma and had radiation therapy to the pelvic bones in 2010. In 2011 (more than 21 days later) a right hip biopsy revealed immature plasma cell myeloma. There is clinical documentation that this is progression into myeloma. Per the Heme DB (Primary Site(s) and Definition sections) and Rule PH30, in the Heme Manual, the primary site is coded to C421 [bone marrow] and the histology is coded 9732/3 [plasma cell myeloma] when there is a clinical diagnosis of multiple myeloma and/or there is no documentation of a bone marrow biopsy or the results are unknown. This patient did have a bone marrow biopsy that indicates there are an increased plasma cells present; plasma cells represent less than 10%. The skeletal survey and bone scan did not reveal any further lesions.

Is this progression of disease because there is only one lesion in the right hip 8 months after the diagnosis of plasmacytoma? Or is this a second primary based on the right hip biopsy that showed plasma cell myeloma and the physician's documentation of disease progression? Plasmacytomas are usually single lesions. Would this disease process have multiple lesions if they are diagnosed at different times?

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?

The patient was diagnosed with essential thrombocythemia in 2007 and was treated with Hydrea. The 2009 bone marrow biopsy showed primary myelofibrosis which the physician states is a transition from the essential thrombocythemia. The Heme DB calls this two primaries.

The patient was diagnosed with chronic myelogenous leukemia in 2008 followed by a diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia in 2011. Per the physician statement, the patient started nilotinib in 10/2011 for CML.

The SEER*Rx Database lists CML and GIST as the only primary site/histology combinations treated using nilotinib. Can nilotinib also be coded as treatment for the CLL primary?

The patient was diagnosed with an extranodal DLBCL on a biopsy of the stomach. A bone marrow biopsy performed 16 days later showed no DLBCL, but demonstrated an abnormal CD5-positive B-cell population that was subsequently referred to as CLL/SLL by the physician. The peripheral blood was negative and showed only moderate thrombocytopenia.

Does rule M10 apply in this case? Abstract the acute neoplasm as a single primary (DLBCL) as there was only one pathology specimen (stomach biopsy) proving DLBCL and the bone marrow did not definitively identify CLL/SLL.

The patient was diagnosed with an EBV-positive plasmablastic lymphoma involving the left testis on radical orchiectomy in April 2019.

In September 2019, a plasmacytoma was found on a right mandibular mass biopsy. Imaging at that time revealed diffuse disease involving the thoracic spine and sinus involvement. The patient then underwent a resection of the T8 spinal/epidural tumor that also proved plasmacytoma.

Subsequently, the right mandibular mass and testis slides were reviewed (at an outside facility) and both were stated to be, The T8/epidural tumor pathology was not reviewed, so it is unclear if this is also assumed to be the same disease process as the right mandibular mass or still a separate, solitary plasmacytoma.

Additionally, some chart notes indicate the patient has plasmablastic lymphoma with a secondary diagnosis of plasmacytoma, while other chart notes state this is stage IV plasmablastic lymphoma involving all documented sites. Although the plasmablastic lymphoma and at least the plasmacytoma of T8 have different ICD-O-3 histology codes, the physicians do seem to be treating this as a single disease process.

The patient was diagnosed with a left testis primary in the early 1980s that did not include a seminoma component per the information available. The slides were not available for review. In 2024, the patient was found to have a metastatic seminoma involving multiple pelvic lymph nodes and the prostate. The right testicular ultrasound was negative. The managing physician noted this was both a "relapsed seminoma" and a "Stage IIC seminoma."

Should the new diagnosis of metastatic seminoma be accessioned as a new primary based on the histology differences? Or is this situation similar to SINQ 20160073 in which this is a single primary even though the metastases are a distinctly different histology?