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: 07/05/2025 01:58 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20120090 First course treatment/Chemotherapy: Can a drug be coded as treatment for primary sites or histologies not listed for that drug in the SEER*Rx Database? See Discussion.

The patient was diagnosed with chronic myelogenous leukemia in 2008 followed by a diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia in 2011. Per the physician statement, the patient started nilotinib in 10/2011 for CML.

The SEER*Rx Database lists CML and GIST as the only primary site/histology combinations treated using nilotinib. Can nilotinib also be coded as treatment for the CLL primary?

 SEER*Rx lists the approved sites/histologies for each drug. However, if you have a physician statement that indicates the drug was given for another site/histology, code the agent as treatment for that site/histology. 2012
20120033

Multiple Primaries--Hematopoietic: How many primaries are abstracted when a patient is diagnosed with essential thrombocythemia in 2007 and a bone marrow biopsy performed on 12/4/2009 shows primary myelofibrosis? See Discussion.

The patient was diagnosed with essential thrombocythemia in 2007 and was treated with Hydrea. The 2009 bone marrow biopsy showed primary myelofibrosis which the physician states is a transition from the essential thrombocythemia. The Heme DB calls this two primaries.

This is a single primary, essential thrombocythemia [9962/3] diagnosed in 2007. The 2010 Heme DB and Manual should not have been used to determine the number of primaries in this case. The Heme DB applies only to cases diagnosed 2010 and later.

In order to determine the number of primaries, use the rules in place at the time of the subsequent 2009 diagnosis of primary myelofibrosis. Per the Single Versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table, a diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia [9962/3] followed by a diagnosis of primary myelofibrosis [9961/3] is a single primary.

 2012
20130111 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a 2008 diagnosis of extralymphatic follicular lymphoma in the breast is subsequently diagnosed in 2011 with ocular follicular lymphoma? See Discussion.

The patient was diagnosed with follicular lymphoma in the breast in 2008. Per notes, there was no evidence of disease again until 2011 when the patient presented with ocular lymphoma. The physician stated this was part of the same disease process as the prior breast diagnosis. The bone marrow was not involved in either case.

Is this a single primary (recurrence) of follicular lymphoma? Or are these multiple primaries because they arise in different extralymphatic sites?

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

Accession a single primary, follicular lymphoma [9690/3] of the breast diagnosed in 2008 per Rule M2.

Accession a single primary when there is a single histology. This is a recurrence of the patient's 2008 follicular lymphoma.

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.

2013
20130031

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a plasmacytoma of the intervertebral disc is diagnosed in 2010 followed by a diagnosis of immature plasma cell myeloma by a right hip biopsy in 2011? See Discussion.

The patient was diagnosed with intervertebral disc plasmacytoma and had radiation therapy to the pelvic bones in 2010. In 2011 (more than 21 days later) a right hip biopsy revealed immature plasma cell myeloma. There is clinical documentation that this is progression into myeloma. Per the Heme DB (Primary Site(s) and Definition sections) and Rule PH30, in the Heme Manual, the primary site is coded to C421 [bone marrow] and the histology is coded 9732/3 [plasma cell myeloma] when there is a clinical diagnosis of multiple myeloma and/or there is no documentation of a bone marrow biopsy or the results are unknown. This patient did have a bone marrow biopsy that indicates there are an increased plasma cells present; plasma cells represent less than 10%. The skeletal survey and bone scan did not reveal any further lesions.

Is this progression of disease because there is only one lesion in the right hip 8 months after the diagnosis of plasmacytoma? Or is this a second primary based on the right hip biopsy that showed plasma cell myeloma and the physician's documentation of disease progression? Plasmacytomas are usually single lesions. Would this disease process have multiple lesions if they are diagnosed at different times?

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

This case is accessioned as two primaries: Plasmacytoma diagnosed in 2010 and plasma cell myeloma diagnosed in 2011 per Rule M10. The patient has a diagnosis of a solitary plasmacytoma (chronic neoplasm) followed by a diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma (acute neoplasm) diagnosed greater than 21 days later.

The physician is calling this a progression to plasma cell myeloma even though the bone marrow has less than 10% plasma cells, take this statement as progression or a clinical diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma.

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.

 2013
20130113

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a patient diagnosed and treated for multiple myeloma is subsequently diagnosed with multiple large plasmacytomas involving the scalp and thorax? See Discussion

The patient was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, underwent treatment and subsequently was in remission. The patient later presented with lesions on the scalp and thorax lesions. The final diagnosis on the pathology report for the scalp lesion was multiple myeloma with plasmablastic transformation (high grade). The physician states this is an aggressive, recurrent multiple myeloma with multiple large plasmacytomas involving the scalp and thorax.

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

Accession a single primary, multiple myeloma [9732/3] per Rule M2.

The multiple myeloma is in an advanced stage when plasma cells are being deposited on the scalp and thorax. Clinically, those plasma cells are rightly called plasmacytomas by the physician. However, the patient has a late-stage multiple myeloma causing the plasma cells/plasmacytomas. Note that under the myeloma Recurrence and Metastases section of the Heme DB it indicates that extramedullary involvement (e.g., the scalp and thorax involvement) usually indicates advanced disease. Therefore, this scenario represents a case of a single histology that is accessioned as a single primary per Rule M2.

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.

 2013
20021141 EOD-Extension--Lung: When only minimal information is available, such as scans and needle biopsies, should EOD extension be coded to localized or unknown? See discussion.

The patient was diagnosed with non-small carcinoma of the lung by needle biopsy of the right upper lobe Feb. 2, 2001. History revealed that CT performed prior to needle bx showed 2 right sided lung lesions and right hilar adenopathy. Chest x-ray following needle bx showed irregular opacity within the RML appears unchanged. Soft tissue prominence in the azygos region, possibly related LN enlargement. This is the only information available.

Should we code extension as 30 [localized, NOS]?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 99 [unknown] if no additional information is available for this case. Because the second lesion in the right lung could be malignant, the extension code might be 77 [separate tumor nodule(s) in different lobe]. With the possibility of a more extensive stage, the status of the hilar lymph nodes is also not clear. The abstracted information is insufficient to stage this case.

 2002
20180026

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned when a prophylactic mastectomy reveals a final diagnosis of invasive tubular carcinoma, but the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Protocol includes ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) sized separately and it is not clear if these are different tumors? See Discussion.

The patient was incidentally diagnosed with cancer on a prophylactic mastectomy, so there are no positive imaging findings to correlate the number of tumors/masses. The final diagnosis was invasive tubular carcinoma, and referred to the CAP Protocol. The CAP notes: However, it does not specify whether the single contiguous focus also includes the in situ component. The CAP goes on to note DCIS was present: The gross description does not provide any indication of either a single or multiple tumors/masses/lesions, though it was referred to as "Lesion 1" in the gross description with no indication of other lesions.

The format of the CAP Protocol frequently does not specify whether the DCIS is a separate measured tumor, or if it is a component of the invasive tumor. This makes it difficult to determine whether the DCIS should be a separate primary when the invasive tumor is not also a type of ductal carcinoma. Per both the 2007 MP/H and 2018 Solid Tumor Rules, an invasive tubular carcinoma and a ductal carcinoma in situ would be multiple primaries if they were multiple tumors. Should we default to Rule M1: Abstract a single primary when it is not possible to determine if there is a single or multiple tumors? Or should we assume these are separate tumors because they were both sized, the focality only described a single invasive tumor, and the tumors are not both ductal carcinomas?

Accession a single primary using Solid Tumor Rule M3. Based on the information provided, this was described as "Lesion 1' with no other lesions noted in the gross description. If the DCIS was a separate tumor, this would have been noted by the pathologist.

Reminder, the breast CAP protocol is a checklist for pathologists to note their findings while reviewing the slides and/or specimen. The findings and notes should be consolidated into a final/synoptic report.

 2018
20230058

Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be accessioned for a patient with known history of right breast carcinoma in 2018 followed by 2022 biopsy proven right and left breast invasive ductal carcinoma if the physician states this is a right breast primary with widespread metastasis including the left breast? See Discussion.

The patient was initially diagnosed with invasive mammary carcinoma of the right breast in 2018, treated with lumpectomy, sentinel node biopsy, radiation, and hormones. Hormones were discontinued early due to dysfunctional uterine bleeding.

This is a single primary according to the Solid Tumor Rules.

  1. Breast Solid Tumor Rule M18 applies to the occurrence of the second right breast tumor (single primary).
  2. Apply the Solid Tumor Rules, General Instructions, that state the rules are NOT used for tumor(s) described as metastases. Tumor in a metastatic site is not counted when applying the Solid Tumor rules. In this case, the physician stated that this is a right breast primary with widespread metastasis to the left breast.
 2023
20110138

First course treatment--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is first course of treatment when a patient received multiple different chemotherapy regimens before a complete remission for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma was achieved?

The patient was initially treated with involved field radiation and R-CHOP. The patient still had residual disease and the treatment was changed to RICE. Following RICE, there was still residual disease and the patient underwent another unspecified chemotherapy treatment. The patient was then transferred to a transplant center for pre-transplant chemotherapy and a bone marrow transplant. The patient achieved a complete response after transplant.

Should the R-CHOP and radiation be the first course treatment in a case like this, or would first course treatment include all chemotherapy and the transplant?

For hard-to-treat diseases such as DLBCL, the treatment plan outlined prior to treatment beginning may indicate, "The first course of treatment will be radiation and R-CHOP. If the R-CHOP does not achieve remission, we will use RICE." In other words, the first course treatment plan includes a second round of chemotherapy if the patient has not achieved a complete response after the R-CHOP and radiation. If the treatment plan was documented like this for the patient, the first course treatment includes R-CHOP, involved field radiation and RICE.

However, if there is no initial treatment plan in the medical record, all treatment provided after the date when "residual disease" or "failed to achieve remission" is documented in the medical record is either second or a subsequent course of therapy.

 2011
20190061

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be reported for a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) on core biopsy of the right breast in 2016 with all treatment refused, followed by a 2019 large right breast mass ulcerating the skin and clinical diagnosis of invasive breast cancer (patient again refused all treatment)? See Discussion.

The patient was never treated for the 2016 diagnosis, so the 2019 diagnosis is the same tumor that has progressed. Prior SINQ 20091096 for a similar case type cited multiple primaries per the 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules, Rule M8, the same rule as the current Solid Tumor rule M17, because this is to be reported as an incidence case.

However, it seems like Solid Tumor Rule M3 would apply because a single tumor is a single primary, and behavior of the 2016 primary would then be updated from /2 to /3. It is unclear how one would advance to the Multiple Tumors module and apply M17 because there is really only a single tumor in this case.

Since the first diagnosis is in situ, and the later diagnosis is invasive, the 2019 diagnosis is a new primary even though it may be the same non-treated tumor.

For cases diagnosed 2018 and later, abstract multiple primaries according to the 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M17 that states

Abstract multiple primaries when an invasive tumor occurs more than 60 days after an in situ tumor in the same breast.

Note 1: The rules are hierarchical. Only use this rule when none of the previous rules apply.

Note 2: Abstract both the invasive and in situ tumors.

Note 3: Abstract as multiple primaries even if physician states the invasive tumor is disease recurrence or progression.

Note 4: This rule is based on long-term epidemiologic studies of recurrence intervals. The specialty medical experts (SMEs) reviewed and approved these rules. Many of the SMEs were also authors, co-authors, or editors of the AJCC Staging Manual.

 2019