SEER Inquiry System - Search

The patient underwent a partial mastectomy and sentinel lymph node biopsy, followed by an axillary lymph node dissection for the first right breast primary in 2011. The separate 2020 right breast primary was treated with a total mastectomy and removal of one involved axillary lymph node. The operative report only refers to this as a non-sentinel lymph node, with no mention of other axillary findings.

Cumulatively, this patient has undergone a modified radical mastectomy since there were likely no remaining axillary lymph nodes. If the Surgery of Primary Site data item is cumulative, does the order of surgeries matter?

It is unclear whether this question should be directed to SINQ (for coding in a SEER registry) or to CAnswer Forum because both have addressed similar surgery related questions in the past and and there is no guidance regarding this specific situation.

11/18/2019 Left 1st Digit/Thumb Biopsy: Atypical Melanocytic Proliferation consistent with Early Acral Lentiginous Melanoma in situ. Margins Positive. (Not a reportable diagnosis for 2019.)

12/5/2019 Left 1st Digit Shave Biopsies: Malignant Melanoma in situ. Margins Positive.

1/15/2020 Started Aldara (treatment plan: use for ~3 months then Mohs/excision, but due to COVID could not get resection until 7/2020).

7/29/2020 Left Thumb Excision: Residual Melanoma in situ. Margins Positive. Treatment Plan: re-excision.

8/6/2020 Left Thumb Re-Excision: Atypical Lentiginous Melanocytic Proliferation at the 12-2 margin may represent the advancing edge of melanoma in situ. (8/19/2020 Plan to treat the 12-2 margin as positive with in situ; plan for re-excision).

8/20/2020 Left Thumb Re-Excision & Left Nail Plate Excision: Malignant Acral Lentiginous Melanoma with extensive melanoma in situ. Breslow 1.3mm. Margins Positive. Nail plate & bed epithelium with hemorrhage and a mild increase in melanocyte density likely represent melanoma in situ.

9/4/2020 Left thumb partial amputation & Left axillary Sentinel Lymph Node Excision: Residual Malignant Melanoma in situ. 0/3 sentinel nodes positive.

In the April and July 2019 updates to the Solid Tumor Rules, the term simultaneous and Note 1 indicating histologies must be the same behavior were removed from rule M10 (ductal and lobular are a single primary).

We would like to confirm that rule M10 is the correct rule to apply to this case. This case is an invasive diagnosis approximately 4.5 years after an in situ diagnosis, so it seems like M17 should apply (invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later are multiple primaries).

An invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later of the same histology is a new primary. Similarly, it seems like an invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later of different histologies should be a new primary.

The patient was clinically diagnosed with a pituitary adenoma on MRI in June 2009. The MRI noted an unusual contour involving the superior margin of the pituitary gland and the clinical interpretation was a small pituitary adenoma. The patient did not follow-up with the recommended repeat imaging and never received treatment for the pituitary adenoma.

The patient was eventually seen again in January 2020 and the MRI showed no adenoma in the pituitary gland. Since pituitary adenomas are known to spontaneously regress, should the 2009 diagnosis of pituitary adenoma be accessioned as a SEER reportable benign central nervous system (CNS) tumor?

In Table 3 (Specific Histologies, NOS/ NST, and Subtypes/Variants), the entry for papillary carcinoma, NOS includes a change in column 3 of the 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules that conflicts with the H Rules. It is not accounted for in the change log. No explanation is offered as to why this change was made. This is a major change because encapsulated papillary carcinoma is frequently associated with carcinoma NST, and we have not been collecting these as such.

Encapsulated papillary carcinoma (8504) in column 3 now includes an indented entry, with invasive carcinoma, NST/invasive duct carcinoma 8504/3. However, most encapsulated papillary carcinomas are in situ or there is no definitive statement of invasive encapsulated papillary carcinoma, so when in situ and invasive tumors are present, we are instructed to code the invasive histology (which would be the invasive carcinoma (NST), 8500/3). How are registrars to arrive at the correct histology without a new H rule or a clarification regarding this update being documented in the change log?

Does the same change/addition apply to solid papillary carcinoma? These are often also associated with carcinoma, NST. Again, without an explanation regarding the change mentioned above, it is difficult to understand why the change was made.

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

Clinically, the patient was felt to have a pineocytoma (borderline tumor) on imaging, but the subsequent biopsy proved a pineal germinoma (malignant tumor). The Date of Diagnosis instructions state to code the month, day and year the tumor was first diagnosed, clinically or microscopically, by a recognized medical practitioner, but it does not indicate whether differences in behavior alter the diagnosis date.

For brain and central nervous system tumors, should the diagnosis date be the first date a tumor is SEER reportable? Or should the diagnosis date for those tumors ultimately proven to be malignant, be the date the malignancy was diagnosed?

The patient has a history of a minimally invasive endometrial adenocarcinoma that was low grade and confined to an endometrial polyp in 2001. The patient underwent a total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAH/BSO) that entirely removed the tumor at that time.

Almost 18 years later, the patient had a left inguinal mass excision that was, Carcinoma of gynecologic origin, consistent with clear cell carcinoma. No other disease was found, the physician never indicated whether this was felt to be metastatic from the previous, low grade adenocarcinoma or not. It was only noted as, an unusual malignancy of the left lower quadrant and inguinal region of gynecologic origin. No further information was available in the medical record or from the physician on follow-up.

Although neither the Solid Tumor Rules nor the MPH Rules (still in use for the Other Sites schema) apply to metastasis, given the differences in histology and behavior of these two tumors (i.e., minimally invasive, low grade disease diagnosed in 2001 vs. higher grade, more aggressive tumor in 2019) should the current clear cell carcinoma of GYN origin really be the same primary as the 2001 endometrial adenocarcinoma?

For example, chemotherapy and immunotherapy administered first, followed by surgery, then immunotherapy and hormone therapy after surgery. Or is code 4 used for two administrations of chemotherapy before surgery and two more courses after surgery?

SINQ 20200022 indicates that cases originally diagnosed as in situ do not have a new primary when a new invasive tumor with a different histology is diagnosed within 5 years. Should histology and/or behavior get updated for the in situ breast primary?