Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20031082 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Pathologist states that the size of the tumor is difficult to measure but is greater than 3cm but less than 5cm. How would we code the tumor size? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the largest dimension mentioned, since that is the standard rule for coding tumor size. Keep in mind that tumor size is not used in analysis for certain sites such as stomach, colon & rectum, ovary, prostate, and urinary bladder. Tumor size is important for analysis for certain sites such as lung, bone, breast, and kidney. |
N/A | N/A | 2003 | |
|
|
20031093 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Is a small bowel carcinoid diagnosed 10 years after the diagnosis of metastatic carcinoid of unknown primary site a new primary or a new recurrence? See Description. |
A patient was diagnosed in 1991 with metastatic carcinoid to liver-no primary found. In 2001, the patient is diagnosed with small bowel carcinoid at another hospital. Hospital 2 has no other information. |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: Code as two primaries unless there is a physician's statement that the liver lesion is metastatic from the later small bowel carcinoid. Without such a statement regarding lesions 10 years apart, do not make an assumption that one is metastatic from the other. For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules. |
N/A | N/A | 2003 |
|
|
20110073 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Sarcoma: Does a prior clinical diagnosis of a metastatic deposit for a previously diagnosed sarcoma have priority if the diagnosis on a subsequent resection (18 months later) indicates it is also a sarcoma but does not state it represents metastasis from the original sarcoma primary? See Discussion. |
1/28/08 Patient was diagnosed with spindle cell sarcoma in the right gluteus muscle. Metastatic tumors were found in a vertebral body and in the lung. Chemotherapy was started.
4/22/08 PET scan done to evaluate response to chemo. The primary tumor had increased in size. New mass in the left thigh that was highly suspicious for metastasis found. (The left thigh tumor was not accessioned at that time as it was described as a metastatic tumor.)
7/3/09 Left thigh tumor was resected and path revealed spindle cell sarcoma. There was no mention that it represented metastasis.
Does the left thigh tumor represent a new primary per rule M12? Or does the previous clinical description of the left thigh tumor representing metastasis have priority? |
this is a single primary per Rule M1. According to our expert pathologist, "if multiple solid tissue tumors are present (sarcomas), then almost always there is one primary and the rest are metastases. There are infrequent occasions of multifocal liposarcoma or osteosarcoma occurring, but the patient would be treated as a patient with metastatic disease."
The steps used to arrive at this answer are:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a soft tissue primary, use one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Other Sites MP rules to determine the number of primaries because soft tissue primaries do not have site specific rules.
Go to the UNKNOWN IF SINGLE OR MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M1.
Rule M1 states, "It is not possible to determine if there is a single tumor or multiple tumors, opt for a single tumor and abstract a single primary." Given the information from the expert pathologist, this case should be reported as a single primary applying this rule. |
Sarcoma | N/A | 2011 |
|
|
20031103 | Reportability--Ovary: Is a Stage IIIC serous borderline tumor (micropapillary type) of the ovary diagnosed in 2003 reportable? |
Serous borderline tumor of the ovary diagnosed in 2003 is not reportable to SEER. The behavior code is /1 in ICD-O-3. The high stage does not make this borderline tumor reportable. | Ovary | N/A | 2003 | |
|
|
20031116 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can the term "filling defect" be used to code tumor size? See Description. |
Site: Bladder CT abd/pelvis: 4 cm filling defect of the bladder encasing jetstream of distal ureter. 2-3 cm lesion may be extension to bladder. KUB: 3-4 cm filling defect within bladder. Cystoscopy: large bladder tumor with small tumor extending out of the large tumor. OP Findings: Large tumor on right of bladder extending from bladder neck lateral and posterior Pathology: TURB: High grade TCC, Grade III with focal lamina propria invasion. |
For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:
Information on size from imaging/radiographic techniques can be used to code size when there is no more specific size information from a pathology or operative report, but it should be taken as low priority, just above a physical exam. The term "filling defect" from a CT or KUB may be used to code tumor size for bladder in the absence of more reliable size information from path, operative or endoscopic reports. |
N/A | N/A | 2003 |
|
|
20051079 | Reportability/AmbiguousTerminology: Because there is a caveat in the SEER PCM, 3rd edition to ignore adverbs such as "strongly" when assessing reportability, should a term such as "likely" cancerous be reportable given than the expression "most likely" cancerous is reportable? |
"Likely cancerous" is NOT reportable. The CoC, NPCR and SEER have agreed to a strict interpretation of the ambiguous terms list. Terms that do not appear on the list are not diagnostic of cancer. |
N/A | N/A | 2005 | |
|
|
20031131 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Would osteosarcoma of the right arm diagnosed four years after malignant fibrous histiocytoma, also in the right arm, be a second primary when the physician states, "the patient's disease progressed to sarcoma after radiation was administered?" |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: The osteosarcoma is a second primary. The first three digits of the histology codes are different: 8830 [Malignant fibrous histiocytoma] and 918_ or 919_ [Osteosarcoma]. In addition, the diagnoses are four years apart. According to SEER rules, these are separate primaries. For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules. |
N/A | N/A | 2003 | |
|
|
20130184 | Reportability--Appendix: Are low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms reportable? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2022 A low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) is not reportable. The WHO classification designates LAMN with the behavior code /1 [uncertain whether benign or malignant]. |
N/A | N/A | 2013 | |
|
|
20031158 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Trachea/Lung: Would synchronous lesions, of the same histology, diagnosed in the right upper lobe of the lung and trachea be a single primary when the physician feels they are two separate primaries? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: According to SEER rules, abstract as one primary because although these sites have separate topography codes in ICD-O-3, they were coded to the same three-digit topography code in the first edition of ICD-O (SEER Program Code Manual, 3rd Edition, page 8, Exception B). Simultaneous lesions of the same histology in trachea and lung are one primary. Code the primary site to C399 [Ill-defined sites within respiratory system]. For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules. |
Lung | N/A | 2003 | |
|
|
20130221 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Prostate: How many primaries are accessioned for a diagnosis of metastatic small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the prostate following a previous diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the prostate? See Discussion. | Would a second prostate primary with histology coded to 8041/3 [small cell carcinoma] be accessioned for the following examples? Or are these metastases despite the different histologies?
Example 1: Prostate adenocarcinoma diagnosed in 2001, no treatment given. Metastatic small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma diagnosed 03/2012 on liver biopsy with a physician's statement in 4/2012 that the prostate is likely the cause of the metastasis to the liver.
Example 2: Prostate adenocarcinoma diagnosed in 2006, treated with TURP. Bone marrow biopsy in 5/2012 shows involvement by metastatic small cell carcinoma with morphologic and immunophenotypic features that argue against prostatic adenocarcinoma. The oncologist assessment states, "The patient has Stage 4 small cell carcinoma of the prostate and the bone marrow biopsy path shows metastatic small cell carcinoma (likely prostate in origin)." |
Accession two primaries, adenocarcinoma [8140/3] of the prostate [C619], followed by small cell (neuroendocrine) carcinoma [8041/3] of the prostate [C619] for each of the examples given per Rule M10.
In each case, the second histology (because it is not adenocarcinoma) is a new prostate primary. Small cell carcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma are not adenocarcinomas. As a result they are not covered by Rule M3. |
Prostate | N/A | 2013 |
An official website of the United States government
