Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
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 |
|
|
20031071 | EOD-Extension--Brain and CNS: How does one code this field for a brain primary with drop metastases and/or seeding? See Description. | In the past SEER has advised coding these cases to extension 60. However, SS2000 states to code these cases to distant.
1. Primary in the cerebrum, hypothalamic region, with drop mets to spinal cord. 2. Primary in the cerebellum with spinal cord drop mets. 3. Primary in the fourth ventricle, with drop mets along the spinal cord. |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Assign extension code 85 [Metastasis] for drop metastases and/or seeding of the spinal cord from a brain primary. Assign code 85 to each of the three cases above. |
Brain and CNS | N/A | 2003 |
|
|
20240035 | Solid Tumor Rules--Urinary: The example used in Rule M15 of the Urinary Solid Tumor Rules refers to the same row in Table 3. Should the example say Table 2 since Table 3 is non-reportable urinary tumors. See Discussion. |
Rule M15 Abstract a single primary when synchronous, separate/non-contiguous tumors are on the same row in Table 2 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions. Note: The same row means the tumors are • The same histology (same four-digit ICD-O code) OR • One is the preferred term (column 1) and the other is a synonym for the preferred term (column 2) OR • A NOS (column 1/column 2) and the other is a subtype/variant of that NOS (column 3) OR • A NOS histology in column 3 with an indented subtype/variant Example: TURBT shows invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma 8130/3 and CIS/in situ urothelial carcinoma 8120/2. Abstract a single primary. Papillary urothelial carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma are on the same row in Table 3. |
The example used in Rule M15 of the Urinary Solid Tumor Rules should refer to Table 2. We will update this in the next revision of the Rules. |
Bladder | N/A | 2024 |
|
|
20240041 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is an optic nerve meningioma reportable if stated to arise in the “intraorbital segment” of the optic nerve meninges? See Discussion. |
Patient was diagnosed on imaging with enhancement along the right optic nerve intraorbital segment, displacing the optic nerve, most consistent with optic nerve sheath meningioma. Extracranial meningiomas are rare, however SINQ 20230052 does contain an exception for reportability in a different head and neck site because it is not an intracranial location. It is unclear if this portion of the meninges surrounding the intraorbital optic nerve is still “intracranial” and thus reportable. |
Report optic nerve sheath meningioma arising in the intraorbital segment. The optic nerve contains four segments, of which intraorbital is one. The WHO Classification of Eye Tumors, 4th edition, defines meningioma as a neoplasm originating from the meningothelial cells of the optic nerve leptomeninges. According to the Table 3 of the Non-malignant Solid Tumor Rules, all portions of the optic are reportable and meningiomas arising in the dura/meninges of an intracranial nerve are coded to cerebral meninges C700. |
Brain and CNS, Eye | N/A | 2024 |
|
|
20240045 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Prostate: Should cases be reported and abstracted based on ambiguous terminology, e.g., suspicious for prostate cancer, when the physician is not treating the case as malignant? See Discussion. |
Please comment on these specific scenarios.
|
For each of your scenarios, the medical record information indicates that the case is not reportable based on physician opinion. Do not abstract these cases. Remember that the ambiguous terms list is to be used as a last resort. The ideal way to approach abstracting situations when the medical record is not clear is to follow up with the physician. If the physician is not available, the medical record, and any other pertinent reports (e.g., pathology, etc.) should be read closely for the required information. See page 19 in the SEER Manual, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2024/SPCSM_2024_MainDoc.pdf |
Prostate | N/A | 2024 |
|
|
20031072 | EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: Is extracapsular extension implied by the phrase "tumor invades the fibrous tissue of the capsule"? See Description. |
The physician staged to a pathology stage of T3. It appears the physician regards the following pathology statement to be equivalent to capsular invasion on the right side: "Tumor invades the fibrous tissue of the capsule on the right side where it approaches to within 1 mm. of the surgical margin." Should pathologic extension be coded to 42[unilateral extracapsular extension]? |
Use the best information available to stage the case. In this case, the best information is the pathologist's description of the tumor extension rather than the AJCC stage. For cases diagnosed 1995-2003: Extracapsular extension is not implied by the phrase in the question. Code the capsular involvement described to 32 [invasion into but not beyond the prostatic capsule] on the basis of the pathology report. |
Prostate | N/A | 2003 |
|
|
20240075 | 2024 SEER Manual/Reportability--Breast: Is "lobular intraepithelial neoplasia" (LIN) a glandular intraepithelial neoplasia? If so, is lobular neoplasia II (LN II)/LIN II non-reportable, similar to PanIN II - SINQ 20240026? See Discussion. |
The Reportable Diagnosis List indicates "Lobular neoplasia grade II (LN II)/lobular intraepithelial neoplasia grade II (LIN II) breast (C500-C509)" is reportable. The ICD-O-3.2 lists “Glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II” and “Glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, low grade” as histology code 8148 with behavior of /0 (benign). |
Report LN II and LN III along with LIN II and LIN III and assign code 8520/2. WHO Classification of Breast Tumors, 5th edition, lists lobular neoplasia as acceptable, related terminology for lobular carcinoma in situ. |
Breast | N/A | 2024 |
|
|
20021006 | EOD-Extension--Hematopoietic, NOS: If a solitary plasmacytoma originates in the right tonsil and extends to the left tonsil, vallecula and hypopharynx, is extension still coded to 10 [localized disease, solitary plasmacytoma only]? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 10 [localized disease, solitary plasmacytoma only] for all cases of solitary plasmacytoma. |
N/A | N/A | 2002 | |
|
|
20220009 | First Course Therapy/Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site: What code should be used for Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site in 2020 in situations affected by the pandemic when abstracting all sites? See Discussion. |
Example: Patient scheduled for left nephrectomy on 3/10/20 due to left renal papillary renal cell carcinoma diagnosed on 2/11/20 via needle core biopsy. Abstract indicated surgery was cancelled due to the pandemic. Abstract also indicated the surgery was not rescheduled. |
There is no available code that fits this situation. We recommend assigning code 6 (Surgery of the primary site was not performed; it was recommended by the patient’s physician, but was not performed as part of the first course of therapy. No reason was noted in patient record.) and documenting the situation in a text field. |
N/A | N/A | 2022 |
|
|
20110040 | Reportability--Melanoma: Is a pathology report with a final diagnosis stating only non-reportable terms, followed by a re-excision pathology report that indicates "no residual melanoma" reportable? See Discussion. |
Is a case reportable if the final diagnosis on an initial pathology report states a non-reportable term (e.g., evolving melanoma, early/evolving melanoma or melanocytic nevus) and followed by a subsequent re-excision pathology report stating there is "No residual melanoma"? There is no mention in the clinical history on the subsequent pathology report that the diagnosis was thought to be melanoma following the first procedure. The first mention of the reportable term was in the final diagnosis of the subsequent pathology report that stated "no residual melanoma." |
No. This case is not reportable based on the information provided. "No residual melanoma" is not diagnostic of a reportable neoplasm. We recommend that you try to obtain more information from the clinician/pathologist for this case due to the poor documentation. Check for any additional resection performed. |
Melanoma | N/A | 2011 |
An official website of the United States government
