SEER Inquiry System - Search

The synoptic report calls this “Invasive adenocarcinoma with secondary Paget disease of anal mucosa and perianal skin.” The tumor size is listed as “2.1 x 1.7 x 0.7 cm, including associated advanced adenoma; size does not include the extent of the associated Paget disease, which extends for at least 2 cm distally.”  Clinically this is called an incidentally discovered Paget’s disease.

It is unclear if this is a collision tumor that should be abstracted as separate primaries, or if this is a single tumor with underlying Paget’s disease (similar to that described in Other Sites Rule H26). If this is a single rectal tumor, there does not appear to be an H rule for this scenario.

In the examples below, are these a single or multiple primaries?

Example 1:

Tumor 1:  C509/left breast, 8520/2 (in situ lobular carcinoma), dx date-01/10/2019

Tumor 2:  C509/ left breast, 8500/3 (carcinoma NST), dx date-08/19/2021

Example 2:

Tumor 1:  C509, right breast, 8520/2, dx date 06/26/2014

Tumor 2:  C508, right breast, 8500/3, dx date-05/23/2019

There seems to be some conflicting info on this. In the 2020 Breast Rules there was a note add to the revision history. “M10 Same behavior requirement re-added.” Which is not in the rules now, nor was it noted to the revision changes in the last two change logs.

Inquiry 20200070 would seem to indicate that this is multiple primaries, but that contrasts with 20230010 which would seem to indicate a single primary, and an ASK A SEER Registrar question that we received a response to. I don’t see a scenario where rule M17, an invasive tumor DX more than 60 days after an in situ tumor would come into play.

If behavior no longer applies to rule M10, at what point did that change get made? Please advise.

The patient has adenopathy and a lymph node biopsy proved CLL/SLL. The patient underwent a peripheral blood smear, but the final diagnosis only indicated there is an abnormal CLL panel, positive for monoallelic or biallelic deletion of 13q. The pathologist noted a CLL related clone was detected, but there was no definitive diagnosis of CLL on the peripheral blood. No bone marrow biopsy was performed. However, the managing physician noted this was Rai Stage I CLL/SLL with adenopathy in the neck.

The SSDI Manual notes, “Rai stage is only applicable for CLL, in which the bone marrow and/or peripheral blood are involved (primary site C421 for bone marrow, see Hematopoietic Manual, Module 3: PH 5, 6).” Should primary site default to C421 if the physician provides a Rai Stage in the absence of definitive peripheral blood or bone marrow involvement documented in the medical record?

SINQ 20180104 indicates, in the absence of further info, the terms “almost certainly” and “until proven otherwise” are NOT reportable. There is no date range provided for this answer.

SINQ 20200027 indicates, in the absence of further info, the term “most certainly” IS reportable. There is no date range provided for this answer.

SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2022 indicates, in the absence of further info, the terms “until proven otherwise” and “most certainly” ARE reportable.

Essentially, we are hoping for an update of SINQ 20180104 due to 2022 reportability change. Clarification to the equivalence of “almost certainly” and “most certainly” would also be helpful.

Based on the EOD General instructions for accessible sites, the following three requirements must be met

a. There is no mention of regional lymph node involvement in the physical examination, pre-treatment diagnostic testing, or surgical exploration;

b. The patient has localized disease;

c. The patient receives what would be the standard treatment to the primary site (treatment appropriate to the stage of disease as determined by the physician), or patient is offered usual treatment but refuses it.

As a central registry, we receive a lot of melanoma path reports but never receive an abstract since the patients are seen at a dermatology office that does not report to the central registry. In these scenarios, we have both the diagnosis and wide excision or Mohs surgery from which we create a consolidated record. It is not often that lymph nodes are removed which indicates there were no palpable nodes.

Since the Breslow’s and Clark’s level allow for summary staging, is it possible to have central registry guidelines that allow for coding lymph nodes other than 999? The path reports meet two of the three criteria. Is there any new literature that supports coding lymph nodes 000 based on a Clark’s level or Breslow measure providing the patient has a wide excision?

The patient has adenopathy in multiple lymph node regions above and below the diaphragm and a lymph node biopsy pathology proved CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL). Further work-up with peripheral blood proved an abnormal CD5-positive B-cell population comprising only a small percentage of the white blood cells (WBCs). The pathologist noted this neoplastic B-cell population comprises “3.5% of white blood cells and has an immunophenotype characteristic of CLL/SLL and is similar to the recent lymph node biopsy in this patient.” The managing physician indicated this was a Lugano Stage III SLL. The registrar coded the peripheral blood involvement in EOD Primary Tumor.

If this small percentage of WBCs with an abnormal B-cell population is included in EOD Primary Tumor as peripheral blood involvement, then this would indicate peripheral blood/bone marrow involvement and primary site would need to be coded to C421 per Rule PH5. Rules PH5 and PH6 confirm primary site must be coded C421 if peripheral blood or bone marrow are involved.

Is there a cutoff value for these abnormal B-cell populations in the peripheral blood? Or should these abnormal B-cell populations be ignored unless the pathologist states the abnormal B-cell population is consistent with CLL/SLL (not just immunophenotypically characteristic of CLL/SLL)?

The patient was diagnosed with a biopsy-proven 12/2020 LUL SCC treated with radiation only, followed by a right hilar lymph node biopsy in 07/2022, that proved “metastatic pulmonary adenocarcinoma” per pathology and treated with radiation, followed by a biopsy-proven 12/2022 RLL SCC to be treated with immunotherapy only. The imaging never definitively identified a lung tumor that can be assumed to be a primary adenocarcinoma tumor.  In 06/2022, a PET scan only described a “strongly PET positive Rt inferior hilar LN vs infrahilar pulmonary mass,” as well as the subsequently biopsy-proven SCC in the RLL (12/2022 SCC primary). The biopsy path indicates this was a right hilar lymph node metastasis and does not indicate this is an infrahilar pulmonary mass. No other PET positive pulmonary lesions were seen at the time.

The oncologist’s assessment indicates the right hilar node was the only positive finding on the biopsy, and it was unclear if this right hilar node metastasis was from the left lung or if the primary was “not detectable.” The oncologist summarized this as a LUL lung lesion radiated for SCC, a right hilar lesion radiated for adenocarcinoma, and a RLL lung lesion on pathology found to be SCC.

Should the interval occurring metastatic adenocarcinoma be accessioned as a separate lung, NOS primary based on the histology difference? While the Solid Tumor Rules do not apply to metastasis, the oncologist did treat these three malignancies separately and does not indicate the hilar lymph node metastasis was felt to be from either SCC primary.

This patient had serosal involvement and the pathologist and managing physician staged this as pT4a disease. This extension seems best captured by EOD Primary Tumor code 500. Additionally, the patient had discontinuous metastatic involvement of the peritoneum, and this was staged by the pathologist and managing physician as pM1b (Intraperitoneal metastasis only, including peritoneal mucinous deposits containing tumor cells). Although this peritoneal involvement was present in the right lower quadrant, it was staged as distant metastatic disease and not as part of the primary tumor category. However, currently EOD Primary Tumor code 600 would seem to apply since the peritoneal tumor was in the right lower quadrant. Code 600 is defined as mucinous tumors with peritoneal involvement confined within right lower quadrant. This EOD Primary Tumor code and the physician’s M category assignment do not align; the physician has staged this as distant metastasis (M category, not the T category). Should the peritoneal metastasis (even limited to the right lower quadrant) be included in the EOD Mets field and not in the EOD Primary Tumor field? In other words, should the peritoneal involvement included in EOD Primary Tumor code 600 be reclassified in EOD Mets code 30 (Intraperitoneal metastasis (peritoneal carcinomatosis) WITH or WITHOUT peritoneal mucinous deposits containing tumor cells)?