Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20031056 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: For a patient with a remote history of lobular breast carcinoma, would a new diagnosis of lobular breast carcinoma with DCIS be a new primary, even though the physician designates it as recurrent? See Description. |
A history of right breast lobular ca in 1991 treated with a partial mastectomy. Diagnosed 3/02 with "recurrent right breast ca" per physician; pathology in 2002 is lobular and DCIS. Would the DCIS make this a new primary regardless of the physician's designation of 'recurrent' or is this the same primary? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: Accession as two breast primaries -- the first lobular ca in 1991; the second lobular and DCIS in 2002. The differing histologies and the length of time between them negate the physician's designation as "recurrent" in this case. 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. |
Breast | N/A | 2003 |
|
|
20170031 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Penis: How many primaries should be reported for a diagnosis of invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the penis in 6/2011, treated with excision and fulguration followed by 10/2014 penile lesion found to be SCC with basaloid features focally highly suspicious for invasion? Clinically, the 2014 tumor is stated to be in situ and recurrent penile cancer and follow-up in 2/2015 indicates there was no evidence of tumor following treatment. Subsequently, in 3/2016 the patient has another penile lesion biopsy showing SCC in situ suspicious for invasion, clinically stated to be recurrent. See Discussion. |
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? |
Accession three tumors as the tumors were each diagnosed more than one year apart according to the MP/H Rule M10 for Other Sites. And, as you have noted, the patient was free of disease after each diagnosis. The MP/H rules have very clear instructions regarding the word "recurrence." See page 10, specifically A.7., https://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/2007_mphrules_manual_08242012.pdf SEER will evaluate the MP/H rules in the upcoming revision. |
N/A | N/A | 2017 |
|
|
20081126 | MP/H Rules--Brain and CNS: Are stigmata of neurofibromatosis in the brain reportable neurofibromatosis lesions? See Discussion. |
Reference: SINQ 20051108; SINQ 20061018 Three year old patient with history of neurofibromatosis 1. 3/05 MRI of the brain showed right optic nerve glioma. It also showed heterogeneous high t2 signal in the middle cerebellar peduncles and near the genu of the internal capsules bilaterally are stigmata of neurofibromatosis type I. 3/08 MRI showed new mass suspicious for glioma in the hypothalamus. Clinical diagnosis is benign glioma secondary to diagnosis of neurofibromatosis. How many primaries are to be accessioned for this patient? Should the matrix principle be invoked for the second glioma? Should the behavior code for the glioma be 0? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 through 2017 Accession NF (9540/1) when there is CNS tumor -- a glioma or some other intracranial/intraspinal tumor. Stigmata of NF are reportable when the stigmata themselves are reportable tumors. For example, glioma, or another intracranial/intraspinal tumor. Do not report sitgmata that are only termed "stigmata seen on MRI," for example, without other reportable terminology. Do NOT accession NF (9540/1) when there is only peripheral nerve/nervous system involvement. Accession the neurofibromatosis itself only once per patient. Accession any initial neoplasm in the CNS separately. Abstract and code any subsequent CNS neoplasms according to the multiple primary brain rules. Accession three primaries for the case described above.
--> Optic nerve gliomas associated with NF are pilocytic astrocytomas. Code pilocytic astrocytoma as 9421/3 in North America. For cases diagnosed 2018 or later See the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules for Non-Malignant CNS tumors. |
Brain and CNS | N/A | 2008 |
|
|
20081133 | MP/H Rules--Breast: What histology code is used for lobular carcinoma, pleomorphic type? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H14 and code the histology 8520 [lobular carcinoma]. 8520 is the only ICD-O-3 code for lobular carcinoma. There are no codes for specific lobular types. | Breast | N/A | 2008 | |
|
|
20081135 | MP/H Rules--Lung: Per rule M8, tumors of the same site (left lung), same histology (NSCC), greater than 3 yrs apart are separate primaries. However, there was a recurrence to mediastinal LNs after 2 years. Would that make a difference as to whether the 2008 left lung carcinoma is reportable as a new primary or not? See Discussion. |
Scenario: NSCC 2004 LLL with positive hilar/mediastinal LNs treated with LLL lobectomy, chemo and rad. 2006 per CT/PET recurrence in mediastinal LNs treated with chemoradiation. 2008 left lung nodule positive for NSCC stated by MD to be recurrence from 2004 (2008 path not compared to 2004 path). | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: The 2008 lung carcinoma is a separate primary according to rule M8. The 2006 diagnosis is metastases to the lymph nodes. Do not apply the MP/H rules to metastases. |
Lung | N/A | 2008 |
|
|
20180088 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Prostate: How many primaries are abstracted and what M Rule applies when a patient is diagnosed with prostate adenocarcinoma in 2014, followed by liver mass biopsy showing neuroendocrine carcinoma, small cell type of the prostate in 2018? See Discussion. |
The patient has a history of prostate adenocarcinoma with lymph node metastases, status post prostatectomy and treatment by Lupron in 2014. The most recent prostate serum antigen measurement (April 2018) was normal. CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis revealed new hypodense liver lesions, a slightly enlarging lung right lower lobe nodule, and enlarging lobular mass in the prostatectomy bed. The core liver biopsy contains areas of metastatic tumor with a differential diagnosis on pathology of high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the prostate (small cell type), which may have been seen in association with prostate adenocarcinoma, or metastatic small cell carcinoma of a different site. Clinically, the physician impression is that this represents metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The Solid Tumor Rules note that the Multiple Primary Rules are not used for tumor(s) described as metastases. However, SINQ 20130221 indicates that, at least historically, these would have been accessioned as multiple primaries (histology 8140 & 8041 per Rule M10). Does the previous SINQ note still apply to these types of cases, and if so how would one know to move beyond the initial note indicating metastases are not new primaries? |
The guidance provided in SINQ 20130221 still applies. 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 of the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules, Prostate. 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. For the case described in this SINQ submission, based on the findings of a lobular mass in the prostate bed, this is a second primary (there is residual prostatic tissue). This is unchanged from the 2007 Multiple Primaries Rules for Other Sites. |
Prostate | N/A | 2018 |
|
|
20140010 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is this one primary or two? Follicular lymphoma grade 1 (9695/3) on 8/23/12 from an abdominal lymph node. On 1/6/14 an abdominal lymph node biopsy showed diffuse large b cell lymphoma arising from high grade follicle center cell lymphoma. Patient has been on observation. | 1st primary, 8/23/12: Follicular lymphoma, grade 1 2nd primary, 1/6/14: Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma Apply the multiple primary rules twice for this case. The 2012 diagnosis is follicular lymphoma. There are two histologies in 2014: diffuse large b cell lymphoma and follicle center cell lymphoma diagnosed at the same time in the same location. This is one primary per rule M4. Then compare the 2012 diagnosis to the 2014 diagnosis. Per the Hematopoietic Database, follicular lymphoma (all types) transforms to DLBCL. Per Rule M10, the DLBCL would be a second primary. |
Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms | N/A | 2014 | |
|
|
20130101 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is plasma cell dyscrasia, favor MGUS vs. smoldering myeloma reportable? See Discussion. | The pathology report states, "plasma cell dyscrasia, favor MGUS vs. smoldering myeloma." The patient then died of a heart attack and no further information is available. If this is reportable, what histology code applies? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case is not reportable. Neither plasma cell dyscrasia nor MGUS are reportable. Smoldering myeloma was given as a possible diagnosis, but never confirmed.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx. |
Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms | N/A | 2013 |
|
|
20180032 | Reportability--Appendix: Is low grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) reportable for 2018? It is staged as pTis(LAMN) AJCC 8th ed by pathologist. |
Low grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) is not reportable in 2018. See page 6, https://20tqtx36s1la18rvn82wcmpn-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2018-ICD-O-3-Coding-Table-Alpha-order-.pdf. Use cancer registry reportability instructions to determine reportability. Do not use the AJCC TNM manual to determine reportability. |
N/A | N/A | 2018 | |
|
|
20240033 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Stomach: Is a carcinoid tumor of the stomach diagnosed on 01/01/2023, on a patient who was followed up by Gastrointestinal (GI) and was found to have another stomach carcinoid on 02/01/2024, one primary or two? See Discussion. |
Based on the Solid Tumor Rules, we would make this two since it is over one year. According to a previous SINQ question 20110046, we are to code this as one primary. We see patients come back with multiple carcinoid tumors over the years and would like clarification. |
Stop at the first rule that applies which is M12. Per note 3: When it is unknown/not documented whether the patient had a recurrence, use date of diagnosis to compute the time interval. This means there are two primaries. There is a genetic syndrome that causes multiple carcinoid tumors in the GI tract, per our GI expert, and they should be treated as new primaries per M12. SINQ 20110046 describes a unique situation whereby the subject matter expert felt that the occurrence of multiple tumors was due to an unknown underlying condition driving the proliferation of neuroendocrine cells. |
Stomach | N/A | 2024 |
An official website of the United States government
