SEER Inquiry System - Search

A patient has a history of invasive bladder cancer diagnosed several years ago in another state. In 2009, the patient was admitted and found to have a positive biopsy for transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder.

Is this a new primary because the histology of the previous bladder cancer is unknown? When the histology of a previously diagnosed bladder cancer is unknown, should we assume the previous tumor was urothelial carcinoma?

Does Rule M5 only apply if both diseases are present at the original diagnosis, or does it also take into account a recurrence of an old disease? The answer to this question makes a difference between stopping at rule M5 and abstracting as one disease, or going on to rule M15 to query the Hematopoietic Database to determine whether the patient has two separate primaries.

Example: Patient had Stage II Hodgkin disease in 2005 (all lymph nodes above diaphragm, supraclavicular LN biopsied at diagnosis), treated and patient achieved complete remission. In 2010, the patient is admitted for suspected recurrence. A supraclavicular lymph node biopsy showed, "Recurrent Hodgkin" AND "EBV+ Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma," both in the same lymph node. Applying rule M5, this is a single primary and states not to query the DB. However, this doesn't seem correct as it does not account for the new DLBCL.

The first MP/H rule that applies for this case is M4 [tumors in different segments of the colon]. Following rule M4, the case would be counted as two primaries and the histology would be coded per Rule H11. As these are multiple primaries, Rule H17 [Code 8220 (adenocarcinoma in adenomatous polyposis coli) when there are > 100 polyps identified in the specimen] would never apply, because H17 applies to multiple tumors abstracted as a single primary. However, Rule H17 seems to fit this case. Should Rule M3 be expanded to include a statement about > 100 polyps so these cases are not accessioned as multiple primaries?

Example: Total colectomy: 1) Distal tumor: - ulcerating moderately differentiated colonic adenocarcinoma, 3.2 cm in greatest dimension. Tumor invades through the muscularis propria into the subserosa (pt3). 2) Proximal tumor: exophytic moderately differentiated colonic adenocarcinoma, 2.9 cm in greatest dimension. Tumor invades submucosa (pt1). Multiple tubular adenomas present throughout the colon, approximate count greater than 200.

In ICD-O-3, bronchioloalveolar adenocarcinoma is described only by behavior code 3 (invasive). Would the behavior be coded as in situ for the following cases?

Example 1: Left lower lobe, partial resection shows bronchioloalveolar carcinoma with focal areas of fibrosis (see comment). Comment: Although the possibility that these areas represent stromal invasion can not be excluded, we favor the interpretation that these areas do not represent true invasion. Synoptic summary: Minimal pathologic stage: Local Extent.

Example 2: Lung tumor described as adenocarcinoma, predominantly bronchoalveolar pattern. For most sites, the term pattern is used only for in situ cancer and is not a specific term used for invasive tumors. Is the use of the term "pattern" in this situation indicative of in situ tumor?