SEER Inquiry System - Search

The patient had residual tumor following the 2018 transsphenoidal resection and underwent an additional surgery after the residual tumor increased in size. Since pituitary adenoma/pituitary neuroendocrine tumor (PitNET) is a new malignant neoplasm for cases diagnosed 2023 and later, should this be a new primary per M5? Or do we disregard the change in behavior and apply rule M2 (single tumor is a single primary) for this scenario?

This patient does not have a previous diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma nor a previous history of androgen-deprivation therapy.

Does the logic in the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules (STRs) noted in SINQ 20200052 still apply? This SINQ confirms a diagnosis of mixed prostatic adenocarcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma is 8045. This matches the STRs instructions for Rule H21 and Table 2 (Mixed and Combination Codes), row 1. Row 1 indicates a mixed small cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma is combined small cell carcinoma (8045). For a patient without previous treatment, is this the correct mixed histology code?

Example #1: Cervix loop electrocautery excision procedure (LEEP) pathology: Histologic Type: Squamous cell carcinoma, HPV-associated. Histologic Type Comments: High-risk HPV testing on previous Pap test sample reported as positive for high-risk HPV. The prior Pap diagnosis was HSIL only with molecular results positive for high-risk HPV.

Example #2: Cervix endocervical curettage and biopsy with CIN 3, p16 diffusely positive. Subsequent LEEP with superficially invasive squamous carcinoma (no HPV or p16 testing done). This was followed by an additional cone excision that was negative for residual malignancy and p16 testing was also negative.

Small cell carcinoma is a specific type of neuroendocrine carcinoma for the lung. However, Table 3 lists neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS as the more specific subtype/variant in Column 3.

Using Lung Solid Tumor Rules, Rule H6, a diagnosis of poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (small cell carcinoma)” would be coded as 8246, instead of 8041, because there are two histologies under consideration (an NOS and a subtype/variant in Table 3), and the rule tells us to code the subtype/variant. However, small cell carcinoma is more specific than the NOS diagnosis (neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS). Should Table 3 be updated to reflect which histology is the NOS and which is the more specific?

SINQs 20190083, 20180088, and 20130221 all indicate diagnoses of prostate adenocarcinoma, followed by a diagnosis of metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate are separate primaries because these are distinctly different histologies. Does this logic still apply for 2023 and later since Rule M4 was added to the Other Sites M Rules? Rule M4 states, “Abstract multiple primaries when the patient has a subsequent small cell carcinoma of the prostate more than 1 year following a diagnosis of acinar adenocarcinoma and/or subtype/variant of acinar adenocarcinoma of prostate.”

This patient has a 2018 diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma treated with radical prostatectomy, followed by a 2023 diagnosis of metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate diagnosed on a liver metastasis core biopsy. Rule M4 does not indicate whether it applies to subsequent biopsy confirmed metastatic tumor only. When a diagnosis of small cell carcinoma follows a diagnosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma, it is almost always confirmed in metastatic sites rather than in the primary site. Does the logic in the referenced SINQs above still apply for Rule M4?

In 2021, the patient was diagnosed with a non-reportable appendiceal LAMN.  Resection showed a tumor diffusely involving the appendix and perforating the visceral peritoneum, as well as extensive intraperitoneal metastasis.  In 2023, a lung wedge resection revealed metastatic mucinous neoplasm involving lung parenchyma and pleura, consistent with metastasis of the known appendiceal primary.  It is understood that intraperitoneal spread of an appendiceal LAMN does not make it reportable because the peritoneal disease is also non-invasive.  Does extraperitoneal metastasis of an appendiceal LAMN diagnosed prior to 2022 make it invasive disease and therefore reportable? 

Historically, multiple invasive ductal and lobular carcinomas diagnosed within 5 years were abstracted as a single primary. However, it is not clear if Rule M10 or M14 applies to this situation per the 2023 Solid Tumor Rules updates.

Rule M10 addresses multiple tumors of carcinoma of no special type (NST)/duct and lobular, but there is no timing criteria mentioned. Does M10 apply to cases diagnosed synchronously, or metachronously, or at least within 5 years? Should Rule M10 include a Note instructing registrars to accession a single primary for the scenario in question?

If timing matters for Rule M10, then the next rule that applies is M14. Rule M14 instructs one to abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in Table 3, and carcinoma NST/duct and lobular carcinoma are on separate rows in Table 3.

Can you provide clarification on Rectum primary surgical code 40 Pull through WITH sphincter preservation (colo-anal anastomosis)? Would this be code 30 or 40 due to the colorectal anastomosis? 

Patient was diagnosed with a pT1c prostate cancer in 2022. Patient was then treated with radical prostatectomy. No residual disease was found. Would the correct EOD prostate path extension code be 999 based on Note 8 (code 999 when radical prostatectomy is performed, but there is no information on the extension); or, would we use code 300 (confined to prostate) because the data item "...is used to assign pT category for prostate cancer based on radical prostatectomy specimens" and we know it was limited to the prostate because no residual was found?

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?