System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 12/25/2025 14:16 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20140022

MP/H Rules/Kidney, renal pelvis--How many primaries are there for this case? Should we stop at rule M8 making this all one primary (C689) even though there were right and left renal pelvis tumors? Rule M3, which contains laterality, does not apply because there is also a bladder tumor. See discussion.

Kidney: originally diagnosed 12/21/2011 with right renal pelvis high grade papillary urothelial cancer. Status post right nephrectomy. Then on 01/10/2013 diagnosed with low grade papillary urothelial cancer of the bladder. 01/21/2013 diagnosed with left renal pelvis urothelial carcinoma iIn situ. Path report stated this may represent a hgh grade papillary urothelial cancer – unable to confirm due to specimen size. On 01/24/2013 left periaortic lymph node biopsy revealed poorly differentiated carcinoma consistent with prior diagnosed right renal pelvis high grade urothelial cancer. Neither the bladder nor the left renal pelvis tumor was compared to the previous right renal pelvis tumor. Also has bone mets.

Abstract this case as a single primary.

First, apply the MP/H rules to compare the 2013 bladder tumor to the 2011 renal pelvis tumor. Rule M8 applies, this is a single primary. Next, apply the MP/H rules to compare the 2013 in situ renal pelvis tumor to the 2011 renal pelvis tumor. Rule M8 applies, this is a single primary. As you correctly pointed out, Rule M3 for bilateral renal pelvis tumors, does not apply because there is also a bladder tumor in this case.

2014
20140053

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is this abstracted as one primary or two?

5/2/13 Bone Marrow biopsy: myelodysplastic syndrome with approaching to acute myeloid leukemia with del 5q and 7q deletions. FISH: deletion of chromosome 5q and deletion of chromosome 7q detected.

I checked the Heme DB manual and there is no term "With approaching to". I checked the Multiple Primary calculator and it says new primary. My interpretation is that the myelodysplastic syndrome is in the process of transforming to acute myeloid leukemia.

Abstract a single primary, myelodysplastic syndrome with del 5q and 7q deletions (9986/3). This neoplasm can transform to acute myeloid leukemia (AML); however, "with approaching to" cannot be used to report this AML.

2014
20140047

MP/H/Multiple primaries--Urinary: In Aug 2008 Patient was diagnosed with Noninvasive Bladder Cancer. In Oct 2013 Patient was diagnosed with Transitional Cell Carcinoma of Right Ureter involving lamina propria, Noninvasive Transitional Cell Carcinoma Left Ureter and Invasive Transitional Cell Carcinoma of Prostatic Urethra. Is this a new primary and what is the primary site?

Rule M7 applies when comparing the 2008 diagnosis to the 2013 diagnosis: multiple primaries.

Rule M8 applies to the tumors identified in 2013: single primary.

Based on the information provided, code the primary site for 2013 to C689 because there is no indication of the site of origin among the involved sites.

2014
20140083

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Thyroid: How many primaries should be reported when a complete thyroidectomy specimen shows two tumors: 1.8 cm papillary carcinoma with tall cell features (8344/3) and a 0.4 cm papillary thyroid carcinoma (8260/3)? See discussion.

Is papillary thyroid carcinoma an NOS histology qualifying for rule M16, thus leading to a single primary, or would M17 apply (multiple primaries) because the histology codes are different at the second digit (8260 and 8344)? While rule M16 doesn't include papillary thyroid carcinoma in the listed histologies, it seems like it may be an NOS histology for the thyroid. In addition, code 8260/3 is listed as NOS in the ICD-O-3.

Apply rule M16 and abstract a single primary. These two thyroid tumors, one papillary carcinoma with tall cell features (8344/3) and one papillary thyroid carcinoma, fit the criteria for rule M16, although not explicity listed there. We will clarify this in the next version of the rules.

2014
20140090

MP/H Rules/Histology--Endometrium: What is the correct histology code for an endometrial cancer described as "Adenocarcinoma with areas of squamous differentiation?"

Assign 8570/3 to adenocarcinoma with squamous differentiation of the endometrium. The most recent WHO classification does not list "adenocarcinoma" for tumors of the uterine corpus. WHO does state that "endometroid carcinoma of the usual type is a glandular neoplasm..." Further, WHO states "Endometroid carcinoma typically displays a glandular or villoglandular architecture..." Based on the WHO classification, the use of the term "adenocarcinoma" in this context can be interpreted as endometroid carcinoma.

2014
20140013 Primary site--Brain and CNS: How should primary site be coded for a medulloblastoma described as a "posterior fossa mass" and "centered within the fourth ventricle"? See discussion. The associated site code for medulloblastoma in the ICD-O-3 is C716. However, the SEER Manual specifically instructs to ignore the associated site code if a different primary site is noted. Although most medulloblastomas appear to arise in the cerebellum, when described as "centered within the fourth ventricle" can we assume that is the primary site and not simply invasion of the fourth ventricle from the cerebellum?

Code the primary to C717 for this case.

Code the primary site according to the origin of a particular medulloblastoma when it differs from the site code listed in ICD-O-3. The description "centered within the fourth ventricle" suggests that this medulloblastoma originated in the fourth ventricle.

 2014
20140039

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a statement of "JAK-2 positive polycythemia" reportable? See discussion.

Polycythemia, NOS is not reportable. However, there is a statement in the Heme Manual Glossary for JAK2 that states, "When JAK2 is positive, the MPN is definitely reportable." Does a positive JAK 2 always mean there is a reportable myeloproliferative disorder or must there also be an associated statement of a reportable neoplasm (e.g., myeloproliferative disorder, polycythemia vera, or essential thrombocythemia)?

A positive JAK 2 does not always mean there is a reportable myeloproliferative disorder. There must also be an associated statement of a reportable neoplasm (e.g., myeloproliferative disorder, polycythemia vera, or essential thrombocythemia). The glossary entry will be clarified.

2014
20140033

Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Prostate: Can you clarify why a prostate biopsy diagnosis of “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” is not reportable while a biopsy diagnosis of “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable? See discussion.

SINQ 20091103 states that prostate biopsies showing “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” are NOT reportable. However, SINQ 20071056 states that “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable. This appears to be an issue of semantics with no clearly outlined method to determine reportability of such cases.

We have two recent cases with similar semantic issues and want to know whether they are reportable.

1) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation, highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma, with quality/quantity insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer.”

2) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma but due to the small size of focus, findings are not definitively diagnostic.”

Both case examples provided are reportable using instructions for ambiguous terminology. The diagnoses are qualified by the words "highly suspicious" because neither diagnosis is definitive ("insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer" and "not definitively diagnostic."). However, we follow our instructions for interpreting ambiguous terminology and report these cases.

SINQ 20091103 differs slightly. The final diagnosis in 20091103 declares unequivocally "not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma." That phrase in the final diagnosis negates the ambiguous terminology. The situation in 20071056 is similar to the two examples above - the ambiguous terminology instructions apply.

2014
20140025

Grade--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Why isn't "T-cell granular lymphocytic leukemia" (9831/3) coded as "5 T-cell" instead of "9" as specified in the Heme database? My path department did not specify any type of grade, but since "T-cell" is part of the name, wouldn't you code it to "5"?

Assign code 5 when the diagnosis on the pathology report specifies "T-cell granular lymphocytic leukemia." The Heme DB grade instruction states "Code grade specified by pathologist. If no grade specified, code 9." In this case, T-cell was specified - code it. The code for T-cell (5) was not automatically assigned in the Heme DB because of the alternate names for this neoplasm. Some of these include NK-cell. Assign code 8 for alternate names with NK.

The alternate names are: Chronic lymphoproliferative disorder of NK cells, Chronic NK-cell lymphocytosis, Chronic NK-large granular lymphocyte (LGL) lymphoproliferative disorder, CLPD-NK, Indolent large granular NK-cell lymphoproliferative disorder, NK-cell lineage granular lymphocyte proliferative disorder, NK-cell LGL lymphocytosis

2014
20140086

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Colon: Does rule M7 apply here (A frank malignant or in situ adenocarcinoma and an in situ or malignant tumor in a polyp are a single primary)? Can the frank malignant adenocarcinoma be any specific type of adenocarcinoma for this rule to apply?

A patient has 2 synchronous tumors in the ascending colon. The first is grade 3 adenocarcinoma with signet ring differentiation and focal mucinous features (8255/3). The second is grade 2-3 adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma (8263/3).

M7 applies to this case. The frank adenocarcinoma can be a specific type of adenocarcinoma.

2014