Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20021124 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Primary Site/EOD-Extension--Lung: Should lung cases be counted as more than one primary when nodules removed from separate lobes of the same lung have either the same histology or they are different immunophenotypes of the same main histologic classification (e.g., adenocarcinoma)? See discussion. |
1. Path report: "Two nodules (RLL, RUL) of primary pulmonary demonstrate adenocarcinoma with different histologic appearances and different immunophenotypes consistent with synchronous lung adenocarcinomas." Per ICC interpretation, two lung primaries are favored. 2. Path report: "Two peripheral nodules (LLL, LUL) demonstrate similar P.D. non-small cell carcinoma with features of large cell undifferentiated carcinoma." |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: According to current SEER rules, both examples represent one primary because both tumors are in one lung and of a single histologic type. Code the Primary Site field to C34.9 [Lung, NOS] for both examples and the EOD-Extension field to 77 [Separate tumor nodules in different lobe]. This will capture the fact that there are multiple tumors within the lung for each of these examples. Differences in immunophenotypes confirm independent de novo cancers and rule out metastasis. Immunophenotype differences do not equate to different histologies. In the first example described, there are different histologic features; however, the main classification is adenocarcinoma. 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. |
2002 |
|
|
20031117 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Are simultaneous tumors of the rectosigmoid junction and rectum counted as two primaries? See Description. |
On the same day in 1998, a patient was found to have a T3 adenocarcinoma of the rectosigmoid junction and an in situ adenocarcinoma in a villotubular adenoma in the lower rectum. These would be the same histology if they are in the same site. Are C199 and C209 the same site? They are listed in ICD-O-2 (pg. xxxvii) and in ICD-O-3 (pg. 36), but they are not listed in the SEER Program Manual on page 9 as the same site. Is this one primary or two? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: Abstract two primaries for the example above, according to the main rule on page 7 in the SPCM. Rectosigmoid junction (C19) and rectum (C20) are in different 3-digit ICD-O-3 topography code categories. Rectosigmoid junction and rectum are not included in the exceptions to the main rule and, therefore, do not appear on page 9 of the SPCM. The table on page 9 is not identical to the table in ICD-O-3. Two site combinations are listed in ICD-O-3, but not in the SEER table: C19 (rectosigmoid junction) and C20 (rectum); C40 (bones of limbs) and C41 (other bones). Abstract multiple tumors in the rectosigmoid junction and rectum as separate primaries. Abstract multiple tumors in the bones of the limbs and other bones as separate 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. |
2003 |
|
|
20031093 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Is a small bowel carcinoid diagnosed 10 years after the diagnosis of metastatic carcinoid of unknown primary site a new primary or a new recurrence? See Description. |
A patient was diagnosed in 1991 with metastatic carcinoid to liver-no primary found. In 2001, the patient is diagnosed with small bowel carcinoid at another hospital. Hospital 2 has no other information. |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: Code as two primaries unless there is a physician's statement that the liver lesion is metastatic from the later small bowel carcinoid. Without such a statement regarding lesions 10 years apart, do not make an assumption that one is metastatic from the other. 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. |
2003 |
|
|
20000269 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Is an in situ tumor followed by another in situ tumor in the same location a new primary? See discussion. |
Example: Six months after an in situ lesion was excised from the buccal mucosa, another in situ lesion was excised from the same area of the buccal mucosa with no mention of it being recurrent. |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: Code as a second primary if the second in situ tumor occurred more than 2 months after the first, and it is not referred to as recurrent by the clinician or pathologist. There are no special rules for determining the number of primaries when an in situ lesion follows an in situ. 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. |
2000 |
|
|
20031131 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Would osteosarcoma of the right arm diagnosed four years after malignant fibrous histiocytoma, also in the right arm, be a second primary when the physician states, "the patient's disease progressed to sarcoma after radiation was administered?" |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: The osteosarcoma is a second primary. The first three digits of the histology codes are different: 8830 [Malignant fibrous histiocytoma] and 918_ or 919_ [Osteosarcoma]. In addition, the diagnoses are four years apart. According to SEER rules, these are separate 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. |
2003 | |
|
|
20091053 | Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be reported when a lobular carcinoma with positive margins is followed 8 years later by a lobular carcinoma near the previous lumpectomy site? See Discussion. |
Left breast invasive lobular ca diagnosed 3/00 and treated with a lumpectomy, but with multiple positive margins; she received no post operative radiation or other medical treatment (unknown why). 10/08 core biopsy of "an area of distortion" near the scar site is positive for invasive lobular ca. The radiologist states "compatible with recurrence at her previous lumpectomy site" on an x-ray report. One thought is that this should not be a new primary because the patient was never disease free (multiple positive margins) and the patient received incomplete treatment. Or should this be a new primary because the tumors are diagnosed more that 5 years apart? |
Abstract the 10/08 diagnosis as a new primary, per Breast rule M5. In spite of the positive margins and apparently incomplete treatment in 3/00, there is no mention of the presence of disease between 3/00 and 10/08 according to the information provided. |
2009 |
|
|
20091105 | Multiple Primaries--Hematopoietic: How many primaries and which histologies should be reported for a case presenting with a 2005 diagnosis of CLL/SLL, 2006 clinical diagnosis of MDS and a 2008 diagnosis of AML? See Discussion. |
2005 diagnosis of CLL/SLL (9670) with lymph node involvement, treated with FCR. 2006 clinical diagnosis of MDS secondary to chemo (9987) with CLL/SLL in remission. 2008 biopsy reveals AML (9861). Per Seer Hematopoietic Table, 9987 & 9861 are a single primary. In 6/2008 patient receives bone marrow transplant. 2009 status post BMT, BM biopsy reveals RAEB-1 (9983). Is this still the same disease process or a new primary (since status post BMT)? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Two primaries should be abstracted. Using the Definitions of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies table, compare 9670 (SLL) in 2005 and 9987 (MDS secondary to chemo) in 2006. This is two primaries. MDS can transform to AML. On the Definitions of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies table, 9987 (MDS) and 9861 (AML) are a single primary. The AML would be documented in follow-up. (While 9670/SLL and 9861/AML are two different primaries, the SLL has already been reported.) RAEB is a form of MDS. On the Definitions of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies table, 9987 (MDS) and 9983 (RAEB) are a single primary. The RAEB would be documented in follow-up. (While 9670/SLL and 9983/RAEB are two different primaries, the SLL has already been reported.) For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ. |
2009 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20210026 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Lymphoma: Is a case initially submitted as C772 with histology coded 9591/3 (lymphoma, NOS) with a second case submitted as C162 with histology coded 9699/3 (extranodal marginal zone lymphoma of mucosal-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT lymphoma) a single primary or multiple primaries? See Discussion. |
The following cases were submitted to the central registry as separate primaries. First case submitted as C772 with histology coded 9591/3 (Lymphoma, NOS). Second case submitted as C162 with histology coded 9699/3 (MALT Lymphoma). Sequence 01 - 5/2016, Excisional biopsy pancreatic tail lymph node: suspicious for malignant B-cell lymphoma. No treatment recommended or administered. Sequence 02 - 2/2019, Stomach biopsy: MALT Lymphoma. Unknown if treatment was recommended or administered. Biopsy was only at this facility. Using the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Multiple Primaries/Histology rules, Rule M7 makes this a single primary. Note 4 instructs to change the histology of the initial abstract to the more specific histology (9699/3). If this is done, they would be multiple primaries per the exception within Rule M2. Should the histology on sequence 01 be changed to the MALT lymphoma and the cases would be multiple primaries or is this a single primary? |
Abstract two primaries and assign Primary 1: C772, 9699/3 Primary 2: C162, 9699/3 Per Rule M7, you would change the first case to histology 9699/3 based on Note 4 under Rule M7, Note 4: Change the histology code on the original abstract to the more specific histology when the original diagnosis is in your registry database. Use previous editions of ICD-O (i.e., ICD-O-1, ICD-O-2) or the Hematopoietic Database to assign the code applicable to the year of diagnosis for the more specific histology. Per Rule M2 this would be the same primary based on both being the same histology; however, there is an exception for MALT lymphomas (9699/3), which states: Abstract multiple primaries when a nodal MALT (C770-779, 9699/3) occurs before or after an extranodal MALT (all other sites, 9699/3). |
2021 |
|
|
20140017 | Multiple Primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: 2012 path report for removal of an "axillary mass" which consists of 80% diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and 20% follicular lymphoma. In the original manual, Module 6 instructed us to code as a single primary, DLBCL. However, the multiple primary calculator says each disease is a separate primary. When I looked them up in the data base, I did not get an option to review a current manual. Can you please advise? |
Updated May 2026 The Multiple Primaries calculator is not applicable for this case. In this case, there are two NHLs in the same location at the same time. Apply Rule M4, this is one primary. Per Note 7 under Rule M4, go to Rules PH11and PH15 to assign primary site and histology. Rule PH11 states to code to the site of the origin (axillary mass) and to diffuse large b-cell lymphoma (9680/3) when DLBCL and any other non-Hodgkin lymphoma (follicular in this case) are present in the same location at the same time. Code as a single primary with histology Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.
|
2014 |
An official website of the United States government
