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: 09/22/2025 13:45 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20100006

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Kidney: In a patient with a history of renal cell carcinoma, would a new primary be accessioned per Rule M10 for a soft tissue mass in the renal fossa not stated to be a metastasis but that was referred to as recurrent renal cell carcinoma, clear cell per the excision pathology report? See Discussion.

This patient was diagnosed with clear cell carcinoma of the right kidney in 2003, treated with nephrectomy. The tumor was limited to the kidney. An FNA of the pancreas in 11/07 was consistent with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. In 2009 the patient was diagnosed with a right renal fossa mass by CT. The mass was excised on 8/26/09 and showed, "recurrent renal cell ca, clear cell." The path specimen was labeled as, "soft tissue, rt renal fossa." The original 2003 slides were not reviewed and the renal fossa mass was not described as being metastatic.

If the renal fossa soft tissue mass is a new tumor, the MP/H rules for Other Sites directs you to code it as a new primary per rule M10 [Tumors diagnosed more than one (1) year apart are multiple primaries]. Would this be a new soft tissue tumor per rule M10? Or would this be a recurrence of the original kidney primary?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

This is not a new primary. The patient has metastatic disease from the 2003 kidney primary. Clear cell carcinoma metastasized to the pancreas in 2007 and to the right renal fossa in 2009.

 2010
20100058 Grade: Can the nuclear grade value be coded in the grade field for any site, or is it restricted to sites where it is specifically listed as an option in the coding manual, i.e., breast, kidney, urinary sites, etc.? There is no restriction on sites for which nuclear grade can be coded in the grade field. If both differentiation and nuclear grade are specified, differentiation takes priority. 2010
20100046

Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a clinical remission sufficient to change the tumor status to "disease free" for a patient on long-term chemotherapy for a diagnosis of either a chronic hematologic disease, such as CML, or a myeloproliferative disorder, such as essential thrombocythemia? See Discussion.

For some patients with chronic hematologic diseases, the disease/recurrence status could change frequently as chemotherapy is started and stopped over an extended period of time. Should the tumor status for these cases always be "not disease free"? When the physician documents the patient is in clinical remission, does their status change to "NED or disease free?" There seems to be a lot of variation across the US in how registrars are coding this field. Clarification would be appreciated.

The term "disease free" is not used in a standard fashion for hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms.

Code the cancer status to free of disease when the physician indicates NED. For hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms, a physician's statement of NED, disease-free, clinical remission or no evidence of disease at this time, should be recorded with cancer status to disease free. The term "disease free" or NED means that there is no clinical evidence of disease.

2010
20100008 Primary site--Bladder/Unknown & ill-defined sites: Should the coding of primary site be based on a molecular study when it is not verified by a clinical correlation? See Discussion.

Patient was seen in 2009 at Hospital A for bone pain and was found to have metastatic adenocarcinoma. A paraffin block specimen was sent to BioThernostics for THEROS CancerTYPE ID Molecular Cancer Classification Tests. The results came back with a 94% likelihood that the urinary bladder was the primary site. No scans were done on the abdomen or pelvis.

The patient was then sent to Hospital B for radiation to the bones and chemotherapy (Carboplatin and Taxol). The patient died within 6 months.

According to Hospital A, the primary site is bladder based on the molecular study report. Hospital B says this is an unknown primary. Which is correct? Do we take primary site from these tests, even when no clinical correlation is documented?

 Code primary site to bladder in this case. Code the known primary site when given the choice between a known primary site and an unknown primary site. 2010
20100054 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned if a pathology specimen reveals an infiltrating mammary carcinoma with mixed tubular and lobular features, 2.3 cm, low grade cribriform in situ ductal carcinoma, and Paget disease of the overlying skin with ulceration? See Discussion. According to SINQ 20081134 the histology would be 8524 if this is one primary.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is a single primary.

In order to determine whether this case represents a single or multiple primary, you must first determine the correct histology code for the underlying tumor. Using rule H9, ignore the DCIS.

See Table 3 in the equivalent terms and definitions. Infiltrating lobular, tubular, and Paget are coded to a single histology code (8524/3). Our current multiple primary rules do not say infiltrating lobular and tubular and Paget are a single primary. This was an omission and will be corrected in a future revision. Thank you for bringing this omission to our attention.

 2010
20100081 Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should a single primary be accessioned with the histology coded 9732/3 [multiple myeloma] when a patient is diagnosed initially with a plasmacytoma on an excision and a single bone marrow biopsy showed only 4% plasma cells, then the subsequent workup led to a clinical diagnosis of multiple myeloma? See Discussion.

This patient had a plasmacytoma removed from the sphenoid sinus and was started on Dexamethasone. The patient had a bone marrow biopsy with 4% plasma cells. A statement in the hematology notes read, "it can increase the rate of false negative results with a bone marrow biopsy." The bone marrow biopsy was done 15 days after the surgery for the plasmacytoma.

Workup yielded the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Per a statement in hematology notes, "I found her having 4% blasts, atypical plasma cells in the bone marrow biopsy and also lytic lesions involving the T7 and lucencies involving L4 and L5 vertebral bodies and also the upper sacrum. The PET-CT scan did not show significant metabolic activities in those lesions. The patient had a small amount of Bence-Jones in the urine and also an abnormal kappa to lambda ratio in the serum. The ratio was 12 to 1. The beta 2 microglobulin was 1.4. The albumin in the serum was 3.4. Based on that, the patient has been diagnosed with Durie-Salmon stage III in ISS stage II multiple myeloma."

The abstractor notes for multiple myeloma state that the diagnosis is made when the proportion of plasma cells in the bone marrow is 10% or greater. Should a diagnosis of MM be accessioned and coded when the bone marrow is less than 10% plasma cells, but a clinical diagnosis of MM is made?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Accept the physician's diagnosis of multiple myeloma [9732/3]. Code the multiple myeloma as a single primary using rule M8 if there was only ONE positive biopsy. Code as multiple primaries (both the solitary plasmacytoma and multiple myeloma) using Rule M11 if there are TWO positive biopsies, one confirming the chronic neoplasm and the other confirming the acute neoplasm.

Per the Heme DB Abstractor Notes: The registrar DOES NOT CODE plasma cell myeloma based on the percentage of plasma cells. There must be a diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma. In addition, a clinical diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma may be made based on amyloidosis with associated renal impairment, anemia and/or hypercalcemia supported by radiologic evidence of multiple lytic bone lesions. he biopsy confirmed plasma cell malignancy (plasmacytoma) and the clinical workup confirmed myeloma.

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.

2010
20100095

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Kidney, renal pelvis: In a patient who was never disease free because of multiple recurrences of invasive transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder originally diagnosed in 2004, is an invasive high grade urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis diagnosed in 2010 a new primary? See Discussion.

Patient has invasive TCC of the bladder diagnosed in 2004, and has never been disease free.

In 2/18/10 a left renal pelvis wash showed urothelial carcinoma, high grade.

On 4/7/10 a nephroureterectomy revealed high grade urothelial carcinoma with sarcomatous and squamous differentiation invading through pelvic wall and perihilar soft tissue.

Is this a new renal pelvis primary?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the renal pelvis is a new primary per rule M7. M7 will be better explained in the revised MP/H rules, but the rationale is that no field effect was present for more than 3 years. Although the bladder CA continued to recur, there were no other organs involved until 2010. M7 is intended to make the renal pelvis a new primary because there was no field effect (no organs other than bladder involved) for more than 3 years.

 2010
20100067 MP/H Rules/Reportability--Ovary: Should an ovarian tumor with the histology of mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma be accessioned based on the presence of a foci of intraepithelial carcinoma? See Discussion.

The final diagnosis on the pathology report, "Omentum: mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma. Peritoneal fluid for cytology: neoplastic cells present; low grade serous neoplasm. Lymph nodes, right pelvic: one lymph node harboring implants of serous borderline tumor and endosalpingiosis within the subcapsular sinus. Bilateral fallopian tubes and ovaries: mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma involving ovarian surface and serosal surface of the tube. Detached fragment of borderline tumor within the tubal lumen. Uterus, cervix, and segment of colon: mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma involving parametrial and paracervical tissue, cul de sac, uterine and colonic serosa. Nine pericolonic lymph nodes negative for tumor. Stage III.

I&R # 45622 asked if a mucinous borderline tumor with intraepithelial carcinoma and focal microinvasion is reportable. The answer given on that site was that the case is not reportable. According to MPH, FORDS, and Collaborative Stage, intraepithelial carcinoma is in situ, behavior code 2, and is reportable. Has this changed?

This case is reportable because there is a diagnosis of carcinoma (intraepithelial carcinoma). 2010
20100020 Histology/Behavior--Brain and CNS: How are these fields coded for a "cystic glioma"? Code the histology 9380/3 [Malignant glioma; Glioma, NOS]. There is no specific code for cystic glioma. 2010
20100106 Reportability-Bladder: Is a case with a cytology diagnosis, "positive for malignancy, favor low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma" reportable if the diagnosis on a subsequent bladder biopsy showed only "urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential"? See Discussion.

On 11/23/09 the patient had urine cytology diagnosis "positive for malignancy, favor low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma." On 12/28/09, the bladder biopsy showed "urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential."

SINQ 20081086 only addresses the example of a positive FNA/biopsy followed by a negative resection. Would the previous decision hold for this case when a positive fine needle aspiration biopsy is followed by only a negative biopsy?

This case is not reportable. The pathology proved the cytology to be incorrect. The pathologic diagnosis is the "gold standard." When cytology and pathology disagree, use pathology.

2010