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 19:17 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20200054

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Liver: When does a hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence in the same area of the liver get accessioned as a new tumor following TACE/Y90/RFA? If there is a new HCC in the same area as previously treated but it is stated to be recurrent and/or progressive disease, is that evidence of a disease-free interval? If the tumor area is stated to be LR-TR and non-viable, but then a new HCC in that area is diagnosed, does that count as a disease-free interval? See Discussion.

Example 1: 5/2013 diagnosis of HCC in segment 4B (single tumor), treated with microwave ablation in 7/2013. CT scan in 11/2017 with new 23mm hypodensity in liver segment 4 suspicious for recurrent disease. Clinical assessment in 1/2018: New enlarging lesion in liver most consistent with progression of HCC. Treated with RFA in 2/2018. Is the 2018 occurrence a new primary as imaging stated this was a new lesion?

Example 2: 7/2017 diagnosis of HCC in right liver; 2.5 cm lesion in segment 5/6 with a couple of satellites and 12mm lesion in segment 6, treated with Y90 radioembolization. Follow-up note in 11/2017: complete response of treated cluster of lesions in segment 5/6 and lesion in segment 6, increase in size of caudate lesion not amenable for treatment (this lesion was stated to be indeterminate on 7/2017 imaging). Caudate lesion finally stated as LI-RADS5 on 3/2018 imaging and was treated with chemoembolization 6/2018. 7/2018 and 10/2018 Follow-up imaging states LR-TR nonviable lesion in caudate lobe. 8/2019 CT shows caudate lobe with arterial enhancement, new compared to prior imaging, LR-TR viable. MD note states patient has small local HCC recurrence in segment 1 (caudate lobe) with plan to repeat TACE. Is this 8/2019 HCC a new primary as the patient was disease free for greater than 1 year, or is it the same tumor and a single primary?

Both examples are multiple primaries.

Example 1: The 2018 lesion is a new tumor. Abstract multiple primaries based on 2018 Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M10, when tumors are diagnosed more than one year apart.

Example 2: 2017 diagnosis showed complete response to treatment. 2019 lesion is a new primary based on timing.

The General Instructions of the Solid Tumor Rules instruct: Do not use a physician's statement to decide whether the patient has a recurrence of a previous cancer or a new primary. Each scenario should be evaluated separately using the rules as a guide.

 N/A N/A 2020
20010084 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can you code the known size of the residual tumor in a further resected specimen if the size of the tumor in a prior excisional biopsy is unknown? See discussion. Excisional biopsy is done prior to admission and the tumor size is unknown. Pt is admitted for a mastectomy and the residual tumor size is 5 mm.

For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 999 [unknown]. The majority of the tumor would have been removed during excisional biopsy and it is possible that the tumor could have been quite large.

 N/A N/A 2001
20031189 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Thyroid: Would a papillary carcinoma of the right lobe of the thyroid diagnosed approximately 2 1/2 years after a papillary carcinoma of the left lobe be coded as a second primary? See Description.

8/31/1999: papillary carcinoma, left lobe thyroid, treated with lobectomy.

1/17/2002: papillary carcinoma, right lobe, treated with lobectomy, completion thyroidectomy.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Yes, this is a second primary. The second papillary carcinoma was more than 2 months after the first and not specified as recurrent or metastatic.

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.

 Thyroid N/A 2003
20031192 EOD-Extension--Breast: How is this field coded when the diagnosis includes both invasive and in situ disease, and the pathology report stated the tumor size may or may not include the size of the in situ portion of the tumor? See Description.

Examples:

1. Invasive ductal carcinoma well differentiated, 1.2 cm, gross tumor size, ductal carcinoma in situ.

2. Gross tumor size 3.2 x 2.5 x 2.3 cm. well differentiated to moderately differentiated invasive ductal ca, accompanying component well differentiated ductal carcinoma in situ, solid, cribiform.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Use extension codes 16, 26, or 36 depending on extent of involvement. These codes indicate that invasive and in situ components are present, the size of the entire tumor is coded in Tumor Size, the size of the invasive component is not stated, and the proportions of in situ and invasive are not known.

Both examples above measure the entire tumor including invasive and in situ components. Assign extension code 16, unless there is evidence of further involvement.

 Breast N/A 2003
20130172 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned and what is the histology for each if a bone marrow diagnosis reveals co-existent systemic mastocytosis and a lymphoplasmacytic neoplasm? See Discussion.

11/7/12 Peripheral blood flow cytometry: small population of clonal CD5- CD10- B-cells consistent with a B-cell lymphoproliferative process.

1/16/13 Bone marrow final diagnosis: co-existent systemic mastocytosis and lymphoplasmacytic neoplasm.

B-cell component of lymphoplasmacytic neoplasm constitutes 20% of bone marrow cellularity and the plasma cell component approximately 20%. The differential diagnosis includes marginal zone lymphoma with plasmacytic differentiation and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma.

Flow cytometry: kappa monotypic B-cells and plasma cells.

Comment: Co-existence of systemic mastocytosis and mature B-cell lymphoma meets the criteria for Systemic mastocytosis with Associated Clonal Hematological Non-Mast Cell Lineage Disease (SM-AHNMD).

From our physician's progress note: KIT-D816V-positive, CD117+/CD25+ /SM-AHNMD(40% of the nucleated cells as spindled mast cells) but also seemingly two distinct lymphoid neoplasms, a CD5-negative/CD10-negative B-cell lymphoproliferative neoplasm consistent with occupying another 20% of the nucleated marrow space, together with an IgG-kappa-restricted (non-reportable diagnosis) occupying another 20% of the nucleated marrow space (and an accompanying 2.0 g/dl M-spike without hypercalcemia or anemia).

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

Under the Alternate Names section of the Heme DB, systemic mastocytosis with Associated Clonal Hematological Non-Mast Cell Lineage Disease (SM-AHNMD) is a synonym for systemic mastocytosis. Per Rule M2, this is one primary. Abstract a single primary when there is a single histology. Code the histology to 9741/3 [systemic mastocytosis].

Per the pathology report, the two diagnoses of systemic mastocytosis and mantle cell lymphoma meet the criteria for SM-AHNMD. The B-cell lymphoma is a symptom/marker of the AHNMD. In systemic mastocytosis with AHNMD, a myeloid or lymphatic malignancy is diagnosed with the SM. The prognosis is usually dominated by the non-mast cell malignancy.

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
20180029

Reportability--Skin: Is early/evolving lentigo maligna reportable?

As of 01/01/2021, early or evolving melanoma in situ, or any other early or evolving melanoma, is reportable.

 Skin N/A 2018
20071104

Reportability--Bladder: Is a "high grade papillary urothelial neoplasm with focal superficial invasion into lamina propria" reportable?

Yes, this case is reportable. It is invasive (invasion into the lamina propria).

According to the WHO Classification of Urinary System Tumours, "Most pT1 cancers are papillary, low or high grade."

 Bladder N/A 2007
20041017 EOD-Lymph Nodes--Breast: When isolated tumor cells are found in an axillary lymph node, should lymph node involvement be coded to 0 [no lymph node involvement] or 1 [micrometastasis (less than or equal to 0.2 cm)]? For cases diagnosed prior to 2004: Code the EOD-Lymph Node field to 0 [No lymph node involvement] when regional lymph nodes are negative, even if there are positive isolated tumor cells (ITC). Breast N/A 2004
20041039 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Kidney/Bladder/Renal Pelvis: Would transitional cell carcinoma of the left renal pelvis, diagnosed two years after a diagnosis of invasive bladder cancer, be a second primary when the discharge is "recurrent transitional cell carcinoma, left kidney"?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

This is an example of the term "recurrent" being used loosely to refer to another primary in the urinary tract. It is highly unlikely that a bladder tumor would metastasize to the kidney. Much more likely is the field defect or regional breakdown of the urothelial tissue that lines the tract from the renal pelvis to the urethra. Furthermore, bladder tumors don't spread retrograde to the kidney. Code as two primaries.

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.

 Bladder, Kidney, renal pelvis N/A 2004
20130186

Grade: Can the FIGO grade be used to code the morphologic grade? See discussion.

FIGO Grade is coded in CS SSF 7 in the Corpus Uteri schema. The SEER Manual does not address using FIGO grade for coding grade in morphology.

Do not use FIGO grade to code the grade field. See the sentence below the table in Instruction #6 in the Grade Coding Instructions for cases diagnosed 2014 and later, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/grade/

N/A N/A 2013