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: 11/16/2025 00:28 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20091003 MP/H Rules/Histology--Peritoneal primary: Can the cell types from the primary site and a metastatic site be combined to code histology? See Discussion. Patient has vaginal mass biopsy diagnosed as 'papillary carcinoma with psammoma bodies.' Two weeks later the patient has laparoscopy with multiple peritoneal biopsies, diagnosed as 'well differentiated serous adenocarcinoma'. Patient stated to have peritoneal primary with mets to vagina and was treated with chemotherapy. Do we code the histology to 8441/31 from the primary site biopsies, or can we use 8460/3, combining the cell types from the primary and metastatic sites? Please see SINQ 20041062 for a similar question before the 2007 MP/H rules.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8441 [serous adenocarcinoma, NOS].

Code the histology from the primary site when available. Do not combine histologies from primary and metastatic sites.

In this primary peritoneal case, the diagnosis from the peritoneal biopsies was serous adenocarcinoma.

 2009
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
20091119

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries are to be reported for an adenocarcinoma of the lung in the right middle lobe of the lung and bronchioalveolar carcinoma, non-mucinous type in the right upper lobe? See Discussion.

Bilobectomy revealed two tumors, adenocarcinoma in the right middle lobe and bronchioalveoar carcinoma non-mucinous type in the right upper lobe. MP/H rule M10 states that tumors with non-small cell carcinoma (8046) and a more specific non-small cell type (chart 1) are a single primary. Does rule M10 apply to only those cases for which one tumor is stated to be non-small cell, NOS? Or do we use chart 1 to identify specific subtypes? For this case, using chart 1, would we note that bronchioalveolar is a subtype of adenocarcinoma and count this case as a single primary? Most of the MP/H rules schemas have a rule making an adenocarcinoma and a more specific type of adenocarcinoma a single primary. Would we apply rule M10 to this case and count it as a single primary? Or would we move on to rule M11 and count the case as two primaries?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M11 applies. Accession two primaries.

Rule M10 applies only to cases for which one tumor is stated to be "non-small cell carcinoma."

 2009
20091027 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Thyroid: How many primaries should be coded in a patient with a 4/5/08 left thyroid lobectomy diagnosis of follicular carcinoma followed by a 7/25/08 right thyroid lobectomy diagnosis of papillary carcinoma, follicular variant?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Rule M17 under Other Sites applies. These are separate primaries based on their ICD-O-3 histology codes. Follicular carcinoma is coded 8330. Papillary carcinoma, follicular variant is coded 8340. The histology codes are different at the third number. Rule M6 does not apply because these diagnoses are more than 60 days apart.

 2009
20091024

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: Are diagnoses in bladder, ureter, renal pelvis, and other urinary made prior to 2007 used in determining multiple primaries? See Discussion.

Per the General Information for MPH, Rule #3, the rules are effective for cases diagnosed January 1, 2007 and after. Do not use these rules to abstract cases diagnosed prior to January 1, 2007.

Example: Is a 2006 diagnosis of a renal pelvis primary with the histology 8130/3 and a 2007 diagnosis of a bladder primary with histology 8130/3 "multiple tumors" or is the bladder tumor a new primary because it is a single tumor at the time of diagnosis in 2007?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Use the 2007 MP/H rules for urinary sites to assess tumors diagnosed in 2007 or later.

For the example above, use the 2007 rules to determine whether or not the bladder tumor diagnosed in 2007 is a new primary. Use the Multiple Tumors module when comparing a 2007 or later diagnosis to an earlier diagnosis. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M8. The 2007 bladder urothelial tumor is not a new primary since there is an existing 2006 renal pelvis urothelial primary.

 2009
20091025

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: How should we handle urinary tract tumors diagnosed before the MP rules went into effect when determining the number of primaries to report primaries? How do you apply rules M5, M6 and M8 when an invasive bladder tumor and other urinary site tumors occur before and after the effective date of these rules? See Discussion.

Example: Patient with a prior in situ carcinoma of the bladder in 11/89, left ureter papillary transition cell carcinoma in situ diagnosed in 5/05, left renal pelvis papillary transition cell carcinoma in situ diagnosed in 8/07 and invasive bladder carcinoma diagnosed in 3/08. When an invasive bladder tumor and other urinary site tumors occur, do you stop with the bladder at rule M5 and M6 never reaching M8?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Use the 2007 MP/H rules for urinary sites to assess diagnoses made in 2007-2014. Use the multiple tumors module to compare a diagnosis in 2007-2014 to an earlier diagnosis.

For the example above, start by comparing the left renal pelvis diagnosis in 8/07 to the earlier left ureter primary diagnosed 5/05. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M8. The 8/07 renal pelvis diagnosis is not a new primary. Next, compare the 3/08 bladder tumor to the earlier left ureter primary diagnosed 5/05. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M5. The 3/08 bladder tumor is a new primary because it is an invasive diagnosis following an in situ diagnosis. Use only the more recent of the two earlier urinary diagnoses for comparison. Do not compare the 2007 and later diagnoses to the 11/89 in situ bladder primary in this case.

 2009
20091094 Reportability--Anal canal: Are squamous cell carcinomas arising in a condyloma of the rectum reportable or should we assume that the site is skin of anus or perianal area and not reportable? Squamous cell carcinoma arising in a rectal condyloma is reportable. Do not assume the site is skin of anus or perianal. 2009
20091034 CS Extension--Ovary: How are the following terms coded when they are described in the medical record without any other qualifying information? Seeding, talcum powder appearance, salting, miliary, and studding.

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Seeding, talcum powder appearance, salting and studding are synonymous with implants. When the size of implants is not stated, but operative report and scans state "seeding," "talcum powder appearance," "salting," and "studding" the CS extension code choice will depend on the location of the seeding, talcum powder appearance, salting, or studding.

The word "miliary" is not documented as a synonym for implants.

The term miliary does not affect the CS extension code choice according to the current CS instructions.

 2009
20091087 Reportability--Appendix: Is a metastatic low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm reportable if the pathologist states that it is a borderline tumor of the appendix? See Discussion. Low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm; Lt ovary, cul-de-sac, omentum, and small bowel: Metastatic low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm. Per pathologist this is a borderline tumor of the appendix. Borderline tumors (other than brain and CNS) are not reportable to SEER. In the case of borderline tumors, the term "metastatic" does not automatically make them reportable. When the "metastatic deposits" are also borderline, the case is not reportable. For this case in particular, the "metastases" are actually (benign) implants and not malignant or invasive mets. 2009
20091021

Behavior/Reportability--All sites: Would a GIST tumor stated to be "high risk for malignant behavior" be a reportable GIST? See Discussion.

According to our pathologist and oncologist, the terms "malignant" and "benign" do not apply to GIST. Rather, the term "high risk for malignant behavior" is used. This is based on tumor size: greater than 5 cm and mitotic activity: greater than 5 mitoses/50 hpf.

Do not report the case to SEER if it does not satisfy the criteria for reportability. According to the current reportability criteria, malignant GIST (8936/3) is reportable to SEER. GIST coded to 8936/0 or 8936/1 is not reportable. If your pathologist will not indicate "malignant" or "benign," code 8936/1 applies according to ICD-O-3 and, therefore, these are not reportable to SEER.

 2009