SEER Inquiry System - Search

MRI and CT Neck Impression: Extensive tumor mass which likely originated within the left ethmoid sinus and extends intracranially via the cribriform plate into the anterior cranial fossa. There is involvement of the left orbit and extension into the superior aspect of the left maxillary sinuses as well as the nose. Second enhancing lesion within the right maxillary sinus measures almost 2 cm. The second mass within the floor of the right maxillary sinus, with similar imaging characteristics, is consistent with malignant involvement.

The patient has an extensive ethmoid sinus tumor, biopsy showed squamous cell carcinoma. The ethmoid sinus is not a paired organ. The patient also has a small maxillary tumor with no histologic confirmation, Hem/Oncology chart notes state the right maxillary sinus mass is carcinoma. The maxillary sinus is a paired organ.

Per the AJCC Manual (AJCC Manual for Staging, 7th edition, page 70), both the ethmoid and maxillary sinuses are further identified by their laterality (left and right). Why aren't the ethmoid sinuses a paired organ for the MP/H Rules? What MP rule applies to this case?

Core biopsy of left breast at 2:00: Invasive ductal carcinoma, Nottingham score 6/9.

Core biopsy of left breast at 4:00: Invasive mucinous carcinoma (variant of ductal carcinoma), Nottingham score 5/9.

Post neo-adjuvant mastectomy: Main (largest tumor): Invasive ductal carcinoma, upper outer quadrant grade 2. Secondary tumor: mucinous carcinoma, grade 1 at 4:00.

The bone marrow biopsy proved bone marrow with blasts comprising 15-19%. Neither the pathologist nor the physician specifically diagnosed this as AML, calling this only high risk disease or early evolving AML prior to starting the patient on Vidaza.

No further information can be obtained from the pathologist or the physician for this case. Should this early evolving AML be accessioned as an additional primary per Rule M10, or is this the same MDS that is now high risk as the blast count is up to 19%, but has not yet reached the threshold of 20% blasts usually required for AML per the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Database?

5/27/02 Transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT)--papillary transitional cell carcinoma, +lamina propria, no muscle invasion. All urine cytologies in 2011 and 2012 (only follow up received) show no malignancy. 3/11/15 Lung fine needle aspirate--poorly differentiated carcinoma consistent with urothelial carcinoma. 4/30/15 Renal pelvis biopsy--low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma, no lamina propria invasion, no muscularis propria invasion.

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?

The patient was diagnosed with an EBV-positive plasmablastic lymphoma involving the left testis on radical orchiectomy in April 2019.

In September 2019, a plasmacytoma was found on a right mandibular mass biopsy. Imaging at that time revealed diffuse disease involving the thoracic spine and sinus involvement. The patient then underwent a resection of the T8 spinal/epidural tumor that also proved plasmacytoma.

Subsequently, the right mandibular mass and testis slides were reviewed (at an outside facility) and both were stated to be, The T8/epidural tumor pathology was not reviewed, so it is unclear if this is also assumed to be the same disease process as the right mandibular mass or still a separate, solitary plasmacytoma.

Additionally, some chart notes indicate the patient has plasmablastic lymphoma with a secondary diagnosis of plasmacytoma, while other chart notes state this is stage IV plasmablastic lymphoma involving all documented sites. Although the plasmablastic lymphoma and at least the plasmacytoma of T8 have different ICD-O-3 histology codes, the physicians do seem to be treating this as a single disease process.

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.

On the same day in 1998, a patient was found to have a T3 adenocarcinoma of the rectosigmoid junction and an in situ adenocarcinoma in a villotubular adenoma in the lower rectum. These would be the same histology if they are in the same site.

Are C199 and C209 the same site? They are listed in ICD-O-2 (pg. xxxvii) and in ICD-O-3 (pg. 36), but they are not listed in the SEER Program Manual on page 9 as the same site. Is this one primary or two?