SEER Inquiry System - Search

At the central registry, we have accessioned this scenario as three primaries per Multiple Primaries/Histology (MP/H) Rule M10 (diagnosed more than 1 year apart), as the patient was stated to be disease free between each occurrence. However, the diagnosing/treating facility is not reporting these cases due to clinical statements of recurrent disease.

This is an example of a case type identified on casefinding audits conducted by our central registry in which we have learned SEER's expectation of MP/H rule application does not match hospital reporting. Can the 2018 version of the MP/H rules more clearly address how this type of clinically recurrent (multiple times) case should be handled?

Patient had bilateral ovarian tumors. The right ovary had serous cystadenocarcinoma and left ovary had clear cell adenocarcinoma. The pathology COMMENT section stated, "Based on the histologic differences of the tumors within each ovary, feel these represent two distinct separate primaries. Lymph node metastases are clearly serous ca." The physician staged the right ovary as T2a N1 M0 and left ovary as T1c N0 M0. Do we accession one primary per rule M7 [Bilateral epithelial tumors (8000-8799) of the ovary within 60 days are a single primary]?

What is intention of Rule M7? If the histology in each ovary is different but within the range (8000-8799), is that supposed to be accessioned as one primary? Or is the intention of Rule M7 that tumors in both ovaries must have the SAME histology within that histology range to be a single primary?

8/1/2016 Left Abdomen biopsy: Early melanoma in situ (C445-2, 8720/2).

9/2/2016 Upper back: Superficially invasive malignant melanoma (C445-9, 8720/3).

Does rule M4 apply and multiple primaries should be reported or does rule M8 apply and a single primary should be reported?

Patient has diagnosis of melanoma with spindle cell features found in a right lower lobectomy specimen. Chart notes indicate this is metastatic from a cutaneous primary of unknown site. Further work up includes a biopsy of the tip of the nose, which is diagnostic for in situ melanoma. Should this be abstracted as two separate primaries, one for an invasive melanoma of unknown primary site and the other for an in situ melanoma of the skin on the tip of the nose? Which MP/H Rule would apply?

After more than seven years, the patient in this case decided to proceed with the originally suggested standard therapy. Is this a multiple primary case because the tumors are "diagnosed" more than 3 years apart? Or should we assume this is further progression of the 2000 case because it was originally only treated with alternative therapies? The clinician in this case indicates the patient is being referred for treatment to the right upper lung originally diagnosed in 2000.

In 2004 the patient has a 1.7cm squamous cell carcinoma diagnosed in the LUL of the lung treated with radiation and chemotherapy. In 2007, the patient was diagnosed with a 2.1cm squamous cell carcinoma in the LUL treated with radiation. According to the lung MP/H rules, the 2007 tumor would be a new primary. Given that there was no surgery, would the second tumor be progression of disease or would it be a new primary?

Patient has only a LUL tumor on imaging. The tumor board initially states, possibly a mixed tumor, likely IIIA SCC and/or IIIA or B small cell. Later, the physician refers to it as "Stage III lung cancer, mixed histology with small cell in the lymph node and squamous cell in the LUL mass." Patient has no further workup and has declined therapy.

Bilobectomy revealed two tumors, adenocarcinoma in the right middle lobe and bronchioalveoar carcinoma non-mucinous type in the right upper lobe. MP/H rule M10 states that tumors with non-small cell carcinoma (8046) and a more specific non-small cell type (chart 1) are a single primary. Does rule M10 apply to only those cases for which one tumor is stated to be non-small cell, NOS? Or do we use chart 1 to identify specific subtypes? For this case, using chart 1, would we note that bronchioalveolar is a subtype of adenocarcinoma and count this case as a single primary? Most of the MP/H rules schemas have a rule making an adenocarcinoma and a more specific type of adenocarcinoma a single primary. Would we apply rule M10 to this case and count it as a single primary? Or would we move on to rule M11 and count the case as two primaries?

Per pathology report

• Lung, right lower lobe, wedge excision (A): Invasive moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma with focal lepidic pattern (pT1a, pN0).

• Right lower lobe, completion lobectomy (F): Separate focus of well differentiated adenocarcinoma with lepidic pattern (<4mm) (see comment).

• COMMENT: The block F7 shows a microscopic focus of adenocarcinoma with lepidic growth pattern. This most likely represents a separate primary tumor since the stapled margins were all negative for involvement. This focus measures less than 0.4 cm.

• Tumor focality: Most likely two separate primary tumor nodules. Histologic type: adenocarcinoma, mixed type (NOS and lepidic type).

The tumor board has staged this as two separate primaries and is treating it as such. They are not considering the second focus metastatic even though it is the same histology. Lepidic is not in the ICD-O-3. Is lepidic a new term for histology?

Patient has an April 2009 biopsy proven diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma with a single liver mass in segment 4 that was treated with TACE and systemic chemotherapy. The treated lesion was stated to be stable in subsequent scans performed between 2010 and late 2015.

December 2015 imaging identified a new mass in the left hepatic lobe consistent with cholangiocarcinoma. Is the 2015 tumor a new primary?

In auditing files for expected (but not received) abstracts due from facilities, we've observed these types of cases not being consistently reported as multiple primaries.