SEER Inquiry System - Search

MP/H rules do not apply to metastasis. However, it has been our experience that pathologists and clinicians tend to use the terms metastatic and recurrence interchangeably. The term "recurrence" is not limited to a tumor recurrence in the same site as a previous malignancy. Sometimes it is obvious that the clinician is using the term recurrence to describe a metastatic lesion. When a "recurrence" is located in tissue that is very different from the original primary site, it is easy to recognize that the intended meaning of the term is metastasis.

Example: Patient with squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue with recurrence in the lung.

However, when the metastatic deposit occurs in similar tissue, it is more difficult to determine the number of primaries.

Example when the term "recurrence" is ambiguous: In April 2008 patient was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the ascending colon. At the time of hemicolectomy the tumor was noted to be plastered into the paraduodenal and peripancreatic area. Patient received one dose of adjuvant chemo and then discontinued treatment. In May 2009 the patient was found to have adenocarcinoma in the transverse colon. Per the pathology report the diagnosis for segmental resection at that time showed colonic adenocarcinoma. Tumor location: tumor appears recurrent at anastomotic junction. Abdominal wall mass showed metastatic adenocarcinoma.

One has to wonder if the pathologist found a metastatic nodule at the anastomotic site and called it "recurrent." It is unlikely that the pathologist will compare this specimen to the previous tumor, having already diagnosed it as "recurrent."

MRI and CT Neck Impression: Extensive tumor mass which likely originated within the left ethmoid sinus and extends intracranially via the cribriform plate into the anterior cranial fossa. There is involvement of the left orbit and extension into the superior aspect of the left maxillary sinuses as well as the nose. Second enhancing lesion within the right maxillary sinus measures almost 2 cm. The second mass within the floor of the right maxillary sinus, with similar imaging characteristics, is consistent with malignant involvement.

The patient has an extensive ethmoid sinus tumor, biopsy showed squamous cell carcinoma. The ethmoid sinus is not a paired organ. The patient also has a small maxillary tumor with no histologic confirmation, Hem/Oncology chart notes state the right maxillary sinus mass is carcinoma. The maxillary sinus is a paired organ.

Per the AJCC Manual (AJCC Manual for Staging, 7th edition, page 70), both the ethmoid and maxillary sinuses are further identified by their laterality (left and right). Why aren't the ethmoid sinuses a paired organ for the MP/H Rules? What MP rule applies to this case?

Multilocular clear cell renal cell carcinoma is a specifc histologic type listed in the CAP cancer protocol for kidney, but not in the ICD-O-3 and it is not on the list of specific types of renal cell carcinomas in Table 1 of the kidney equivalent terms and definitions in the MP/H manual. There is a malignant multilocular cystic nephroma 8959 in Table 1, but I can't tell if this the same histology as what is stated in this path report.

Multiple myeloma was diagnosed more than 5 years prior to admission. The patient underwent multimodality treatment.

Currently, the patient suffered a fracture. The pathology report diagnosis was "plasmacytoma." The discharge summary states, "multiple myeloma advanced with multiple lytic lesions".

Does this scenario represent a single primary dating back to the original diagnosis? Or does the diagnosis of plasmacytoma on the recent biopsy indicate a new primary because it was originally diagnosed as acute and reverts to a chronic neoplasm after treatment more than 21 days later?

Neither the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines nor the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Guidelines (including Tables 1-7) address reportability changes for chondrosarcoma grade 1. In the Solid Tumor Rules Manual, Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions, Table 7 (Tumors of Odontogenic and Maxillofacial Bone (Mandible, Maxilla)), Chrondrosarcoma grade 2/3 (9220/3) is included as a subtype/variant for sarcomas in these sites, but it does not address chrondrosarcoma, grade 1.

The ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table lists Chondrosarcoma, grade 1 as morphology code 9222/1. If Chondrosarcoma, grade 1 is no longer a reportable tumor for cases diagnosed 01/01/2021 and later, why wasn't this reportability change included in the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines? If the standard setters chose not to include this reportability change, shouldn't Table 7 also indicate that all chondrosarcomas (NOS, grade 1, grade 2 or grade 3) are reportable for cases diagnosed 2018 and later?

How are registrars to make reportability and histology coding decisions for chondrosarcomas when neither source provides clear instructions regarding these tumors?

None of the histology rules for in situ breast seem to apply to this case:

• Rule H3 doesn't seem to apply because "clear cell" is not a specific intraductal carcinoma.

None of the rules seem to apply when the lymphoma is present in an organ, distant lymph nodes and bone marrow only. No regional nodes are involved.

Does rule PH22 infer that the organ should be coded as the primary site because it has been named by the physician?

Note 2 in CS manual states: "If the pathology report indicates that nodes are positive but size of the metastases is not stated, assume the metastases are greater than 0.2mm and code LNs as positive in this field. Use code 60 in the absence of other information about regional nodes."

1. If the LNs are known to be axillary LNs, note 2 seems to imply the size can be assumed to be greater than 0.2mm. Would you code 25 or 60?

2. Both codes 25 and 60 map to N1, node involvement. Do they each mean something else in the evaluation process?

3. What would constitute "absence of other information"?

4. Is the use of 60 over 25 specific to SEER registries or all users?

5. Abstractors are trained to assume LNs are mobile if there is no contrary information. Is this appropriate?

Now that there are specific surgery codes for shave and punch biopsies, are these biopsies always the Date of First Surgical Procedure (NAACCR Item #1200)? Or should we still be applying the Surgery of Primary Site 2023 instruction in the SEER Manual that states shave or punch biopsies are most often diagnostic; code as a surgical procedure only when the entire tumor is removed and margins are free/gross disease is removed?

Example: On 01/01/2023, patient has a frontal scalp shave biopsy showing melanoma, margins involved. On 02/01/2023, frontal scalp excision shows residual melanoma. Surgery code is assigned B520 (shave followed by wide excision). How is Date of First Surgical Procedure coded now that there is an additional surgery code for the shave biopsy?

Now that there are specific surgery codes for shave and punch biopsies, are these biopsies always the Date of First Surgical Procedure (NAACCR Item #1200)? Or should we still be applying the Surgery of Primary Site 2023 instruction in the SEER Manual that states shave or punch biopsies are most often diagnostic; code as a surgical procedure only when the entire tumor is removed and margins are free/gross disease is removed?

We are aware of the instruction for melanoma cases outlined in SINQ 20230034; however, it is unclear if this should also apply to cutaneous lymphomas and Kaposi sarcomas, or if the intent of the procedure is used for these specific types of skin cases that typically present with multifocal involvement.

Example 1: Patient is diagnosed March 2023 with primary cutaneous T-cell lymphoma presenting as pink, tan patches on the trunk. Punch biopsy diagnosed CTCL and treatment was given via narrow band UVB phototherapy.

Example 2: Patient is diagnosed February 2023 with Kaposi sarcoma presenting as widespread violaceous macules, papules, plaques on the torso, bilateral extremities, and abdomen. Punch biopsy diagnosed Kaposi sarcoma.