SEER Inquiry System - Search

CT chest findings: 1. There is a dominant 1 cm. nodule in the left mid lung. 2. In addition, there is a new rather dominant bilobed nodule in the left lung base. 3. Distant metastases are not identified. Four months later, a doctor's note says routine follow-up visit status post Cyber Knife stereotactic body radiation therapy for synchronous early stage non-small cell carcinomas of the left upper and left lower lobes, both Stage IA. He is medically inoperable. This situation is described as a second primary tumor in AJCC8 page 438. However, by the 2018 Lung Solid Tumor rules, this would be a single primary, per rule M7. Is that correct?

Code 9920/3 is not included under rule M3. However, disease process knowledge would indicate that because the patient has an underlying AML subtype, the leukemia cutis is due to the AML cells that have migrated into the skin tissue. This appears to be a single advanced disease process essentially diagnosed simultaneously.

2015 Rt kidney nephrectomy pathology states: congenital cellular mesoblastic nephroma, tumor sz 5.9cm, tumor limited to kidney, extension into pelvicalyceal system, margin not applicable, LVI negative. Per PubMed.gov: (In newborns) among the low-grade malignant tumors, congenital mesoblastic nephromas can be successfully treated with simple nephrectomy. Per ScienceDirect: ...currently thought that cellular mesoblastic nephroma is actually a renal variant of infantile fibrosarcoma.

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?

Example: MRI found an intradural, extra-axial mass at T12/L1 with possible intramedullary component. Resection of the intradural intramedullary and extramedullary spinal cord tumor found a capillary hemangioma pathologically. The microscopic description on the path report describes a tumor with extensive vascularity involving the dura.

Should we equate the statement of capillary to mean the tumor is arising in a blood vessel as we do for venous hemangioma (non-reportable per SINQ 20130001)? Or should it be reportable as C700, 9131/0 because it is described as involving the dura (intradural, intramedullary and extramedullary)?

These diagnoses were made greater than one year apart with a disease-free interval and M12 seems to be the first rule that applies. This rule does not specifically state the tumors diagnosed greater than 1 year apart must be in the same primary site but Note 1 could be interpreted as implying this. Note 1 states, “Clinically disease-free means that there was no evidence of recurrence in the same site on follow-up.”

Does Other Sites Rule M12 (the timing rule) apply to tumors in different primary sites? It would be helpful if the notes specified this clarification, such as “Clinically disease-free means that there was no evidence of recurrence in the same site (same second and third character CXX.X) on follow-up.”

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?

Example 1. Patient was diagnosed with right breast cancer in 1999 and underwent lumpectomy followed by radiation therapy. In 2001, patient was again found to have right breast cancer and was admitted for mastectomy. The surgeon stated that this was recurrence. The patient's primary care physician stated the patient had a new primary. Is there a priority order if the multiple physicians involved in a patient's care do not agree on the diagnosis?

Example 2. Patient was diagnosed in 1998 with left breast cancer. In 2000, the patient again was diagnosed with left breast cancer. There was no mention of recurrence so case was accessioned as a second primary. In 2003, patient was again admitted for an unrelated disease. In the H&P, the physician stated that the patient had recurrent breast cancer in 2000. Do we remove the second primary from our file based on this statement three years later?

Example 3. Patient was diagnosed with Paget's disease with intraductal carcinoma, left breast, in 1997. In August 2002, patient underwent left mastectomy for DCIS, left breast. In November 2002, patient's oncologist stated that patient had been on Evista for 5 years and had recurrent cancer despite Evista. Do we accession this as one or two primaries?