SEER Inquiry System - Search

The patient was diagnosed in 2018 with met melanoma to the brain found via imaging. The staging procedure was a single axillary lymph node excision which was positive for metastatic melanoma. The exact site of the primary was never determined and the site code is C449. Is the axillary lymph node regional or distant? This affects how I code regional lymph nodes positive, regional lymph nodes examined, and scope of regional lymph node surgery or surgical procedure other site. Similar question was asked in the past (question # 20091101) but I have not found this question restated since the 2018 changes and just want to verify this is still what we are to do.

The patient was clinically diagnosed with a pituitary adenoma on MRI in June 2009. The MRI noted an unusual contour involving the superior margin of the pituitary gland and the clinical interpretation was a small pituitary adenoma. The patient did not follow-up with the recommended repeat imaging and never received treatment for the pituitary adenoma.

The patient was eventually seen again in January 2020 and the MRI showed no adenoma in the pituitary gland. Since pituitary adenomas are known to spontaneously regress, should the 2009 diagnosis of pituitary adenoma be accessioned as a SEER reportable benign central nervous system (CNS) tumor?

The patient underwent a resection of the transitional meningioma in 2012, but residual tumor was left behind. The patient was on surveillance until imaging showed growth of the residual tumor. The resection in 2022 proved atypical meningioma.

Rule M2, the first rule that applies, indicates this situation represents a single primary (a single tumor). However, Rule M4 states the transformation from a benign meningioma to a borderline meningioma would only be a single primary if the meningioma was a NOS.

This patient has microscopic confirmation of a meningioma showing different subtypes/variants (listed in Column 3, Table 6). Should this be accessioned as multiple primaries based on the transformation and distinctly different histologies?

The patient underwent a resection of a perineal mass. Per review of slides it was stated to be "primary mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in a chronic perianal fistula." The adenocarcinoma was invasive into the dermal connective tissue and skeletal muscle, but there was no extension into the anal canal. The discharge diagnosis from the reporting facility called this adenocarcinoma of "ectopic rectal tissue in perianal area."

Should the primary site be coded to skin based on the dermal involvement and lack of anal or rectal involvement? Or, should the primary site be coded to rectum based on the physician's assessment that this adenocarcinoma arose in ectopic rectal tissue?

The patient underwent a PTA biopsy of a lytic mass showing metastatic adenocarcinoma. Imaging revealed a large hepatic mass consistent with cholangiocarcinoma. The physician's impression on a physical exam note was the PTA biopsy was most consistent with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. However, the PTA pathology report was reviewed at this facility and the final diagnosis was not stated to be cholangiocarcinoma, only adenocarcinoma, NOS.

The priority order for coding histology rules in the MP/H Manual indicates pathology has priority over documentation in the medical record. Following the rules in the MP/H Manual, the histology would be coded as 8140 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS]. While this may be technically correct, it seems that intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is often diagnosed as adenocarcinoma on biopsy, but further stated to be cholangiocarcinoma by the physician once other primary sites have been excluded. By applying the rules in the MP/H Manual, cases that seem better characterized as cholangiocarcinomas are being collected as adenocarcinoma, NOS. Should the histology be adenocarcinoma [8140/3] or cholangiocarcinoma [8160/3] for these cases?

The patient underwent a polypectomy. The endoscopy report noted the "single piece polypectomy" only partially removed the polyp/mass as the remainder of the mass was more fixed to the wall. The margins were not noted on the pathology report, but were presumably positive given the endoscopy report and the subsequent low anterior resection (LAR) that proved macroscopic residual tumor. Should the date of the polypectomy be recorded in Date of First Surgical Procedure field? Or would the date of the subsequent LAR be recorded since macroscopic residual tumor was present following polypectomy?

The patient underwent a partial mastectomy and sentinel lymph node biopsy, followed by an axillary lymph node dissection for the first right breast primary in 2011. The separate 2020 right breast primary was treated with a total mastectomy and removal of one involved axillary lymph node. The operative report only refers to this as a non-sentinel lymph node, with no mention of other axillary findings.

Cumulatively, this patient has undergone a modified radical mastectomy since there were likely no remaining axillary lymph nodes. If the Surgery of Primary Site data item is cumulative, does the order of surgeries matter?

It is unclear whether this question should be directed to SINQ (for coding in a SEER registry) or to CAnswer Forum because both have addressed similar surgery related questions in the past and and there is no guidance regarding this specific situation.

The patient underwent a gross total resection of the 2005 glioblastoma multiforme (9440/3). The patient was subsequently diagnosed with a 2024 diagnosis of astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 4 (9445/3).

Should Rule M13 apply to the new 2024 diagnosis and a new primary be accessioned because astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 4 is listed on a different row than glioblastoma? It is unclear whether histology 9445 should be classified as being on a different row because it is also listed as a subtype/variant for glioblastoma in Table 3. Table 3 lists histology 9445 as both “Astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 4” and as “Glioblastoma IDH-mutant.”

The patient underwent a debulking surgery showing a 20.5 cm carcinosarcoma with focal areas of high grade serous carcinoma and extensive high grade stromal sarcoma in the left ovary. The right ovary showed only a high grade serous carcinoma with extensive involvement of the ovarian parenchyma but no sarcomatous elements. While carcinosarcoma is composed of both epithelial and non-epithelial elements, does the presence of a purely epithelial tumor in the contralateral ovary indicate these are separate primaries per rule M8?

The patient presented with a right chest wall nodule. The PET scan showed widespread disease: subcutaneous nodule/mass in the left scalp and right chest wall; large right paraspinal mass; soft tissue density likely a second early paraspinal mass at the right costovertebral junction; right paravertebral mass; and abnormal bony foci in the right humeral head, right iliac crest, right acetabulum and right femur. The physical exam showed 2 cm left supraclavicular lymphadenopathy and a firm 3 cm mass in the right chest wall. Lungs were clear. Abdomen showed no masses or ascites, and no palpable hepatosplenomegaly.

Chest wall nodule excisional biopsy pathology: Lymph node and adjacent soft tissue: Malignant lymphoma with components: 1. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (40%). 2. Follicular lymphoma, grade 3A (60%). Pathology report note states the diffuse large cell lymphoma is probably arising from the follicular center cell lymphoma.

Should this be a single primary? There is no mention of cutaneous lymphoma.