Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20170031 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Penis: How many primaries should be reported for a diagnosis of invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the penis in 6/2011, treated with excision and fulguration followed by 10/2014 penile lesion found to be SCC with basaloid features focally highly suspicious for invasion? Clinically, the 2014 tumor is stated to be in situ and recurrent penile cancer and follow-up in 2/2015 indicates there was no evidence of tumor following treatment. Subsequently, in 3/2016 the patient has another penile lesion biopsy showing SCC in situ suspicious for invasion, clinically stated to be recurrent. See Discussion. |
At the central registry, we have accessioned this scenario as three primaries per Multiple Primaries/Histology (MP/H) Rule M10 (diagnosed more than 1 year apart), as the patient was stated to be disease free between each occurrence. However, the diagnosing/treating facility is not reporting these cases due to clinical statements of recurrent disease. This is an example of a case type identified on casefinding audits conducted by our central registry in which we have learned SEER's expectation of MP/H rule application does not match hospital reporting. Can the 2018 version of the MP/H rules more clearly address how this type of clinically recurrent (multiple times) case should be handled? |
Accession three tumors as the tumors were each diagnosed more than one year apart according to the MP/H Rule M10 for Other Sites. And, as you have noted, the patient was free of disease after each diagnosis. The MP/H rules have very clear instructions regarding the word "recurrence." See page 10, specifically A.7., https://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/2007_mphrules_manual_08242012.pdf SEER will evaluate the MP/H rules in the upcoming revision. |
2017 |
|
|
20150025 | Primary Site--Lung: What are the guidelines for coding primary site when a lung tumor is described as a hilar mass? See discussion. |
At a recent meeting, one registry stated that they apply the following guidelines. 1) If the tumor is described as a hilar mass and there is no mention of LN involvement, Primary Site is coded to hilum (C340) 2) If there is LN involvement along with the mention of a hilar mass, then Primary Site is coded to C349 |
Assign primary site code C340 when a lung tumor is described as a hilar mass. |
2015 |
|
|
20021147 | Other Cancer Directed Therapy--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is "aspirin" treatment for primary polycythemia? See discussion. |
Aspirin is listed as treatment for "thrombocythemia" in the Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases but not for "primary polycythemia." |
Do not code aspirin as treatment for primary polycythemia (polycythemia vera). |
2002 |
|
|
20160033 | First course teatment/Surgery of Primary Site: Is microwave ablation (using heat not alcohol) coded to a surgery code? See Discussion. |
As of 2013, radiofrequency ablation is coded to "radiation therapy," chemoembolization is coded to "chemotherapy," and microwave ablation code to "other." Or, is coding microwave ablation (using heat not alcohol) coded to surgical code "16"? The latest documentation year that I could find in the SEER website regarding the above was 2013. I would appreciate clarification/confirmation of correct coding especially for microwave ablation. |
According to a consensus answer of the technical advisory group, a small group of representatives from each standard setter that meets periodically, microwave tumor ablation should be coded as surgery. For liver, assign code 16 (Heat-Radio-Frequency ablation (RFA); for kidney, assign code 15 (Thermal ablation). |
2016 |
|
|
20110047 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted when a patient is diagnosed with NHL, large B-cell lymphoma in 3/2010 followed by a "recurrence of previously diagnosed" NHL per a 12/2010 liver biopsy? See Discussion. |
Are there timing rules related to the comparison of slides from a subsequent hematopoietic primary diagnosis to the slides from the original hematopoietic primary diagnosis that impact the number or primaries reported? For example, how many primaries are reported for a patient was diagnosed in 3/2010 with large B-cell lymphoma who underwent 7 rounds of chemo. Per 10/2010 PET scan, there was no evidence of disease. In 12/2010 a liver biopsy revealed, "features consistent with recurrence of previously diagnosed non-Hodgkin lymphoma." The pathologist did not compare slides to the original, but several immunoperoxidase stains were done to obtain the final diagnosis in 12/2010. Does timing or comparison to the original slides matter for Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms? Is a comparison of slides needed as required for solid tumor "recurrences"? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph. This case should be accessioned as one primary per Rule M15, 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma]. Per Rule M15 one is to use the Heme DB Multiple Primaries Calculator to determine the number of primaries for all cases that do not meet the criteria of M1-M14. The 12/2010 liver diagnosis of NHL, NOS [9591/3] is the same primary per the Multiple Primaries Calculator. There are no timing rules for lymphoma other than rules M8-M13 which deal with the timing of chronic and acute diagnoses. 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. |
2011 |
|
|
20110046 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Stomach: If there is no statement of recurrence, how many primaries are to be abstracted when a patient is diagnosed with multiple gastric carcinoid tumors between 12/2003 and 3/2009? See Discussion. |
Are the multiple primary rules applicable when a patient has multiple gastric carcinoid tumors? The patient was diagnosed with carcinoid tumors starting in 12/2003 through 3/2009. According to the 2004 SEER Manual, rule 5, if a tumor with the same histology is identified in the same site at least two months after the original diagnosis, this is a separate primary. The physician does not indicate that the pre-2007 carcinoid tumors were recurrent. The patient does not have familial polyposis syndrome. Should each of the following tumors be a separate primary? 12/2003 - Gastric Polyp Removal - Path: Gastric carcinoid tumor 05/2004 - Stomach body polyp removal - Path: Carcinoid Tumor (endocrine cell tumor) 09/2004 - Single polyp in body removal - Path: Gastric carcinoid 03/2005 - Multiple gastric body polyps removed - Path: Carcinoid tumor 07/2005 - 3 small polyps in fundus removal - Path: Carcinoid tumor 02/2007 - Localized nodularity in lesser curvature - Path: Carcinoid (neuroendocrine) tumor 03/2009 - Stomach body polypectomy - Path: Carcinoid tumor |
Code as a single primary. The histology is carcinoid. Our expert pathology consultant replied as follows: "This patient clearly has a condition driving the proliferation of neuroendocrine cells. Possibilities include hypergastrinemia from a gastrinoma or from response of antral gastrin cells due to achlorhydria from long standing chronic atrophic gastritis, or multiple endocrine neoplasia (MEN1) syndrome (genetically driven). How should these cases be coded given we do not have a way to code the inciting situation. (I suspect the gastroenterologist knows what it is, but we haven't obtained that information.) We do not have an ICD-O-3 code for the underlying condition, MEN1 or hypergastrinemia. Therefore, the only choice is to code the resulting tumor, carcinoid [8240/3]." |
2011 |
|
|
20110007 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Bladder: How many primaries are to be abstracted and how are the histologies coded when a bladder resection demonstrates tumor with invasive small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma [8041/3], high grade papillary urothelial carcinoma in situ [8130/2], adenocarcinoma in situ [8140/2], and multifocal flat urothelial carcinoma in situ? See Discussion. | Are the areas of in situ tumor to be ignored or would MP/H Rule M9 apply? |
Ignore the in situ histologies. This is a single primary. Code the histology to invasive small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma [8041/3]. | 2011 |
|
|
20091002 | Multiplicity Counter--Ovary: Given the diffuse nature of ovarian cancer, should we count bilateral parenchymal involvment of ovaries as two tumors? See Discussion. |
Are peritoneal implants mets and not counted as separate tumors, even though they're not stated to be metastatic in the path report, and are not coded as distant mets? |
Code Multiplicity Counter to 02 [Two tumors present] for an epithelial ovarian primary involving both ovaries. Do not count the peritoneal implants; they are regional metastasis and not included in the multiplicity counter. An example like this will be added to the manual in the next revision. |
2009 |
|
|
20071093 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: In addition to Schwannoma, are there additional types of benign tumors that arise in peripheral nerves along the spinal cord that are not reportable? See Discussion. | Are neuroepitheliomatous neoplasms such as ganglioneuroma, gangliocytoma, ganglioglioma occurring along the spinal cord reportable? Are nerve sheath tumors such as neuroma occurring along the spinal cord reportable? Angioma? Reference: SINQ 20051071; Primary Central Nervous System Tumors, NPCR Training Materials 2004 |
Reportability depends on the location of the tumor. Tumors in the following sites are reportable:
Benign and borderline tumors of the peripheral nerves (C47_), including peripheral nerves along the spinal cord, are not reportable.
Please note: spinal schwannomas arising in the nerve root or spinal dura are reportable. |
2007 |
|
|
20110110 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Head & Neck: If a 1991 neuroesthesioblastoma [9522/3] of the nasal cavity has subsequent recurrences of the same histology but later "recurs" in 2008 with "sarcoma, NOS, high grade" on a biopsy and a "high grade fibrosarcomatous transformation of esthesioneuroblastoma" [8810/3] on resection, should the subsequent tumor be reported as a new primary if the clinician continues to refer to the tumor as a "recurrence"? See Discussion. |
Are histologic transformations always recurrences of the original tumor? |
Assuming the same primary site for the 2008 lesion, according to the current MP/H rules the high grade fibrosarcoma [8810/3] is a new primary per Head & Neck MPH rule 11 because it is a different histology. The revised MP/H rules will include tables to define tumors that de-differentiate (transform) and recur with what is seemingly a different histology. Although the rules will be changed in the future, we must use the rules in place at this time for this case. |
2011 |
An official website of the United States government
