Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20031073 | EOD-Pathology Extension--Prostate: Is extracapsular extension implied by the phrase, "involvement of periurethral or urethral margins"? See Description. | The prostatectomy final pathology diagnosis states that the tumor involves the periurethral margin. The microscopic describes involvement of the urethral margin. | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Extension field in the 20-34 range, which implies no extension beyond the prostate. Disregard involvement of periurethral margin or urethral margin, NOS, unless the pathologist or surgeon specifically mentions "extraprostatic urethra" involvement. | Prostate | N/A | 2003 |
|
|
20031145 | EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: Is this field coded 10 [Invasive tumor confined to one of the following subsites: interior wall, one lateral wall, posterior wall] or 30 [Localized, NOS] for tonsillar primary when there is no mention of involvement of surrounding structures? See Description. | Site is stated to be "left tonsil" and was coded to site C099. "The lesion is admixed in tonsillar tissue." No surrounding structures are stated to be involved. Is it logical to assume that since code C099 includes the palantine tonsils and the palatine tonsils are on the lateral wall and since no other areas are stated to be involved that extension code 10 [confined to one lateral wall] would be more appropriate than code 30 [localized NOS]? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD-extension for the case example to 10 [Invasive tumor confined to one of the following subsites: anterior wall, one lateral wall, posterior wall]. The tonsil lies in a pocket on the wall (tonsillar fossa), so you know it is confined to the wall. | Head & Neck | N/A | 2003 |
|
|
20010156 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: Patient diagnosed with two lumps in same breast, different quadrants at same time. One was ductal carcinoma, cribriform type; the other was ductal carcinoma. How many primaries do we code? See discussion. | If the breast cancer had been diagnosed in 2000 we would have coded this case as one primary, code to higher ductal ca. For a 2001 or later diagnosis, should this be coded as two primaries? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code this case as two primaries if the tumors are separate. Separate tumors have clear (negative) margins. If the tumors are not separate, code as one primary.
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 | 2001 |
|
|
20031086 | EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: Must all three criteria be met (an elevated PSA; documentation that the physical exam was negative; and, if a TRUS was done, there is documentation that the findings were negative) in order to code this field to 15 [Tumor identified by needle by elevated PSA]? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Refer to the Prostate EOD Coding Guidelines, Final version distributed to SEER Registries 6/20/2001.
Prostate clinical EOD extension code 15 is used when all three criteria are met as listed on page 3 of the Prostate EOD Coding Guidelines. Meeting 1 or 2 of the 3 criteria is not sufficient for code 15. PE must be done and documented as negative. TRUS may or may not be done, but if done, must be documented as negative. PSA must either be elevated or there is no documentation about the PSA.
Codes 20 and 23-24 would be used with positive physical exam or positive TRUS.
Use codes 30-34 when there is no documentation that the physical exam was negative, or no documentation that the TRUS was negative, or when the prostatic apex is involved. |
Prostate | N/A | 2003 | |
|
|
20110050 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries: How many primaries are to be abstracted when a patient was initially diagnosed with epithelioid sarcoma in 2003, underwent multiple resections, radiation, and ultimately partial amputation of the limb in 2010, each with margins positive for residual epithelioid sarcoma? See Discussion. |
In Dec. 2003 a patient was diagnosed with epithelioid sarcoma of the left palm. In Jan. 2004 the patient had an excision with skin graft and positive margins. Amputation was recommended but the patient chose radiation instead. In May 2006 the patient had a local excision positive for epithelioid sarcoma followed by an amputation of the thumb and index finger with positive margins. Then in April 2010, the patient had an amputation of the remnant of left hand up to the middle third of the forearm. Again, there was residual distal invasive tumor positive for epithelioid sarcoma. |
This is a single primary, epithelioid sarcoma of the left upper limb, diagnosed in 2003. The sarcoma progressed over the years and the patient was never free of disease -- positive margins were documented at each surgical event. Per the 2004 SEER Manual coding rules in place at the time of pre-2007 recurrences, they would not be multiple primaries according to Rule 5, exception 1. The occurrence in 2010 is also not a new primary. The steps used to arrive at this decision are as follows. Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a soft tissue primary, use one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Other Sites MP rules to determine the number of primaries because soft tissue primaries do not have site specific rules. Start with the UNKNOWN IF SINGLE OR MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module that applies for this case. In this module there is only one rule. . This patient was never disease free and it is unknown if this tumor was the same tumor (single tumor) or multiple tumors. Abstract a single primary for this patient. |
N/A | N/A | 2011 |
|
|
20091087 | Reportability--Appendix: Is a metastatic low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm reportable if the pathologist states that it is a borderline tumor of the appendix? See Discussion. | Low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm; Lt ovary, cul-de-sac, omentum, and small bowel: Metastatic low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm. Per pathologist this is a borderline tumor of the appendix. | Borderline tumors (other than brain and CNS) are not reportable to SEER. In the case of borderline tumors, the term "metastatic" does not automatically make them reportable. When the "metastatic deposits" are also borderline, the case is not reportable. For this case in particular, the "metastases" are actually (benign) implants and not malignant or invasive mets. | N/A | N/A | 2009 |
|
|
20031095 | Summary Stage 2000--Colon: How should this field be coded for involvement of "pericolonic fat, NOS" when there is no mention of whether the fat is sub-serosal or supra-serosal? See Description. |
In the summary staging manual pericolic fat is listed under regional direct extension with no mention of whether sub-serosal or supra-serosal. According to our report the pathologist must specify whether involvement of pericolonic fat is of subserosal or supraserosal fat. If involvement of pericolonic fat was not specified as such, this should be localized vs regional direct extension. |
Code Summary Stage as 2 [Regional by direct extension only]. In Summary Stage 1977 and 2000, pericolic fat is listed under Regional Direct Extension. If there is no indication by the pathologist that the involved fat is subserosal, code as Regional Direct Extension. |
Colon | N/A | 2003 |
|
|
20190083 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Prostate: How many primaries should be reported when metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate is diagnosed at the same time as adenocarcinoma of the prostate? See Discussion. |
Patient has biopsy of prostate 12/28/2018 showing Gleason 5+5 adenocarcinoma. Liver biopsy on same date is metastatic small cell carcinoma consistent with prostate primary. Oncology consult states that liver biopsy is likely neuroendocrine conversion from prostate carcinoma. Patient also has bone metastasis and receives radiation, Lupron, Casodex, and chemotherapy of carboplatin and etopiside. Per Solid Tumor Rules, we code histology from primary site over a metastatic site. Thus, the small cell carcinoma, which appears to be the focus of the chemotherapy is lost. Is it correct to code this as a single primary with an adenocarcinoma histology? Both SINQ 20130221 and 20180088 instruct us to abstract multiple primaries when patient develops a metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate after being previously diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the prostate. |
Accession two primaries, adenocarcinoma [8140/3] of the prostate [C619] and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma [8041/3] of the prostate [C619] per Rule M17 of the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules 2018, as these are different histologies with different histology codes at the second number. Adenocarcinoma of prostate often manifests as a small cell carcinoma following treatment or as a progression of disease. It is important to capture these tumors as new primaries. |
Prostate | N/A | 2019 |
|
|
20210078 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018/2021)/Multiple Primaries--Skin Cancer: How many primaries are assigned for sebaceous carcinomas using the Solid Tumor/Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules? Does this scenario represent eight separate primaries? See Discussion. |
Details 4/15/2018: Right abdominal wall mass excision: infiltrating sebaceous carcinoma. Noted to have a history of Muir-Torre/Lynch syndrome. 1/21/2019: Two left upper back mass excisions and two lower back (laterality not specified) mass excisions: infiltrating sebaceous carcinomas 8/7/2019: Excision of multiple sebaceous carcinomas from the right posterior back, left posterior thigh, left anterior abdominal wall, left anterior thigh, right scrotum, right lower abdominal fold, all positive for sebaceous carcinoma on pathology report 9/30/2020: Right gluteal mass, left gluteal mass, back (NOS) excisions: sebaceous carcinomas. 10/14/2020: Right back excision: sebaceous carcinoma. Op note: History of Lynch syndrome with multiple sebaceous carcinomas, recurrent back mass, site of prior mass resection. 10/18/2021: Right thigh excision: sebaceous carcinoma Proposed primaries using MP/H Other Sites Rules #1: 4/15/2018: C445-1 #2: 1/21/2019: C445-2, separate from #1 per M8, same as 1/21/19 C445-9 per M18 #3: 8/7/2019: C445-1, separate from #1 per M10, separate from #2 per M8 #4: 8/7/2019: C447-2, separate from #1 & #3 per M8, separate from #2 per M12 #5: 8/7/2019: C632, separate from #1 per M10, separate from #2-#4 per M11 #6: 9/30/2020: C445-2, separate from #1 & #3 per M8, separate from #2, #4 & #5 per M10 #7: 9/30/2020: C445-1, separate from #2, #4 & #6 per M8, separate from #1, #3 & #5 per M10; I do not think the back, NOS (C445-9) is a new primary per M18. #8: 10/18/2021: C447-1, separate from #2, #4 & #6 per M8, separate from #1, #3, #5 & #7 per M10 |
Assign the number of primaries following the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules. Based on sites, laterality and or timing there are 8 primaries. This is similar to SINQ 20061112 that advised to follow the Multiple Primaries/Histology rules for sebaceous carcinoma. According to the WHO Classification of Skin Tumors, 5th edition, there is a 30-40% risk of local tumor recurrence, and 20-25% risk of distant metastasis. In only one instance did a physician refer this as a recurrence in the available notes. |
Skin | N/A | 2021 |
|
|
20230014 | Reportability--Thyroid: Is a case with thyroid fine needle aspirate (FNA) cytology with nodule 1 Bethesda category 5 and nodule 2 Bethesda 6, reportable in 2021? Does the Bethesda category 5 or 6 have any bearing on reportability? |
In the absence of information to the contrary, thyroid FNAs designated as Bethesda classification category VI are reportable. Thyroid FNAs designated as Bethesda classification category V are not reportable unless there is additional information confirming a reportable diagnosis. For both Bethesda V and VI, NCCN Guidelines recommend total thyroidectomy or lobectomy (depending on tumor size and nodal involvement) for the purposes of definitive diagnosis/treatment, so additional information should be available. We will add this to the next version of the SEER manual. In your example, nodule 1 Bethesda V is not reportable. Nodule 2 Bethesda VI is reportable. |
Thyroid | N/A | 2023 |
An official website of the United States government
