System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 10/08/2026 14:37 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20140087

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Ampulla of vater: Is this a new primary? Patient has intramucosal adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma of the ampula of vater in Sept. of 2011. In May of 2012, patient has another ampullary adenoma with intraepithelial carcinoma (pTis) and an area suspicious for invasion. This is coded 8263/3.

Rule M14, Multiple in situ and/or malignant polyps are a single primary, precedes rule M15, An invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days after diagnosis is a multiple primary, per the MP rules for 'Other sites',

Rule M14 applies. Abstract this case as a single primary.

N/A N/A 2014
20130209

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a new bone marrow diagnosis of acute myelogenous leukemia that follows a 2007 treated diagnosis of a JAK-2 positive polycythemia vera a new primary?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Per Rule M10, abstract two primaries. Per the Heme DB, polycythemia vera [9950/3] transforms to an acute myelogenous leukemia [9861/3]. According to Rule M10, one is to abstract multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm (e.g., polycythemia vera) AND there is a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm (e.g., acute myelogenous leukemia) more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis.

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
20091121 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Brain: Does a patient diagnosed with anaplastic astrocytoma of the left temporal lobe in 2000 followed by a diagnosis of oligoastrocytoma of the right frontal lobe in 2007 have a single primary per rule M7 or multiple primaries per rule M8? See Discussion. MP/H rule M7 states that tumors with ICD-O-3 histologies on the same branch in chart 1 are a single primary. Chart 1 shows that both of the histologies for our sample case are located on the glial branch. However, the glial tumor branch has three secondary branches. Does rule M7 apply to secondary branches? Anaplastic astrocytoma [9402] is classified under the secondary branch for astrocytic tumors. Oligoastrocytoma [9382] is classified under the secondary branch for mixed glioma. Does rule M7 or does rule M8 apply for this case? Does this case represent one or two primaries?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M8 applies. There are two primaries.

Anaplastic astrocytoma and oligoastrocytoma (mixed glioma) are on separate branches in Chart 1. They are both gliomas, but one is a mixed glioma and the other is an astrocytic tumor.

Brain and CNS N/A 2009
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
20000502 EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes: Can the AJCC TNM/Stage be used to help code these fields when there is limited text information in the medical record that describes the tumor involvement?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Yes, this staging information can be used to help code the SEER EOD fields but only if a physician does the TNM/Stage at the time of diagnosis and there is limited text information that describes tumor involvement.

 N/A N/A 2000
20021130

EOD-Extension--Breast: If a negative bone scan is followed by a bone marrow biopsy that is positive for metastatic disease, is the bony involvement used when coding extension [85] or as progression of disease (ignore mets when coding extension)? See discussion.

Pt diagnosed with ductal carcinoma of the breast in May. On June 1, oncologist recommended chemo and XRT and planned a metastatic workup. A June 6 marrow MR consistent with mets. June 8 bone scan showed scoliosis of the L-spine with scattered focal areas of increased activity probably related to degenerative changes in the spine. On June 29, biopsies were done of the T2 vertebra with path diagnosis of metastatic adenocarcinoma consistent with breast primary. Chemo started July 15.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, is EOD extension code 85 correct? We felt that the bone mets was found within 4 months of diagnosis and is not progression of disease.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [metastasis]. Bone metastasis was documented during the original metastatic workup. Metastasis to the bone was suspected soon after diagnosis and confirmed prior to the start of treatment. The length of time between the diagnosis and the confirmation of the bone metastasis was not used to code extension on this case. The pt was still being worked up as evidenced by the fact that treatment had not yet started.

 Breast N/A 2002
20150005

Reportability--Skin: Is this case not reportable if the intranasal polyp is covered with cutaneous epithelium (essentially skin) or, is it reportable as a primary intranasal basal cell carcinoma? I have found one article regarding primary intranasal basal cells, which are described as being "very rare". But, I am not sure whether, in those cases, cutaneous epithelium was found.

FINAL DIAGNOSIS: (A) Nasal cavity, polyp, excision: Sinonasal inflammatory polyp with overlying cutaneous epithelium showing foci of superficial (noninvasive) basal cell carcinoma

Report this case as a basal cell carcinoma, noninvasive, of the nasal cavity, based on the information provided.

The polyp was removed from the nasal cavity (C300) which is a reportable site for basal cell carcinoma.

Skin N/A 2015
20021144 EOD-Extension--Colon: What code is used to represent this field for a mid-ascending colon primary that invades through muscularis propria and into subserosal fibroadipose tissue that also presents with a "separate serosal nodule" of carcinoma within cecum that is consistent with a tumor implant (cT3, N0, M1)?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [Metastasis], because the nodule of carcinoma in the cecum is not contiguous with the mid-ascending primary colon tumor.

 Colon N/A 2002
20000532 EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined: Should a lymph node biopsy be counted in these fields or are these fields for lymph node dissections only? See discussion. Example: 1) Lymph node biopsy: adenocarcinoma. 2) Lymph node dissection: 4/15 regional lymph nodes positive for adenocarcinoma.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

These fields record the number of regional lymph nodes examined pathologically whether from a biopsy or from a dissection. If the single lymph node biopsied was a regional lymph node, code the Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive field to 05 and the Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Examined field to 16. If the lymph node biopsied was a distant node, code these fields to 04 and 15 respectively.

 N/A N/A 2000
20210015

Solid Tumor Rules (2007/2021)/Multiple Primaries--Anus: Have the disease free interval criteria been met for the following case scenario. A patient was diagnosed with anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) III in 7/2018 that was treated with local tumor destruction, followed by Pap smears and biopsies that prove AIN I or AIN II through 2020, before being diagnosed with a reportable AIN II or AIN III in 2021. See Discussion.

Since AIN I is not reportable and AIN II is not reportable until 2021, we are not sure if we can say the patient was disease free because there was no intervening reportable tumor (AIN III), or was never disease free because there was evidence of related disease (lower grade dysplasia).

The 2021 AIN III is not a new primary. According to our GI pathology expert, findings of AIN I and/or AIN II following a diagnosis of AIN III indicates the patient was never NED and indicates persistent disease.

.

 N/A N/A 2021