MP/H Rules--Breast: For tubulolobular carcinoma, do we use 8522? See Discussion.
Path comment: This mixed variant of ductal and lobular carcinoma has been called in the past tubulolobular carcinoma, however, more recently is a mixed pattern of ductal and lobular carcinoma and not a variant of lobular carcinoma.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H18 and assign code 8524 [lobular mixed with other types of carcinoma]. According to the MP/H rules, tubular is not a specific type of duct or lobular. This is based on the latest WHO classification of breast tumors.
The combination histology of tubular and lobular will be reviewed during the upcoming revision of the MP/H rules.
MP/H Rules--Breast: Is inflammatory breast cancer always one primary per lifetime? Or is a subsequent inflammatory breast cancer a second primary if diagnosed more than five years later?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, a diagnosis of inflammatory breast cancer more than five years after a previous diagnosis of inflammatory breast cancer is a separate (new) primary. See rule M5 in the Breast Multiple Primary Rules.
MP/H Rules--Breast: What histology code is used for lobular carcinoma, pleomorphic type?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H14 and code the histology 8520 [lobular carcinoma]. 8520 is the only ICD-O-3 code for lobular carcinoma. There are no codes for specific lobular types.
MP/H Rules/Date of Diagnosis/Behavior--Brain and CNS: How many primaries would be reported when a December 2004 MRI shows a pineal region mass with the major differential consideration being pineocytoma; a November 2007 MRI that shows the mass has almost tripled in size; and the December 2007 resection final diagnosis is consistent with pineoblastoma? How would diagnosis date[s] and behavior code[s] be coded? See Discussion.
Dec. 2004 MRI of brain: Pineal region mass. The major differential consideration given patient's gender, age group, and imaging characteristics is pineocytoma. The differential includes pineoblastoma or germ cell line tumor. These are felt less likely.
Nov. 2005 MRI brain: stable exam since last MRI. No change in size.
Nov. 2007 MRI studies: pineal mass has almost tripled in size.
Dec. 2007 Surgical resection of pineal tumor: High grade (WHO Grade IV) pineal parenchymal neoplasm consistent with pineoblastoma.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Abstract as separate primaries:
12/2004 pineocytoma (9361/1)
12/2007 pineoblastoma (9362/3)
Complete two abstracts when a previously diagnosed non-malignant tumor transforms or progresses to a malignancy. Refer to the CDC/NPCR guidelines for Data Collection of Primary Central Nervous System Tumors, 2004. Malignant transformation is discussed on page 50.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: How would the histology "micropapillary carcinoma" of the thyroid be coded for cases dx'd 2007 and after?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8260/3 [Papillary adenocarcinoma] according to rule H14.
For thyroid cancer only, the term micropapillary does not refer to a specific histologic type. It means that the papillary portion of the tumor is minimal or occult, usually less than 1 cm. in diameter.
Reportability/Histology--Hematopoietic: If a JAK2 positive myeloproliferative disorder is reportable, how should histology be coded?
Please discuss the significance of JAK2 point mutation.
Example: Bone marrow biopsy showed hypercellular marrow with increased megakaryocytes associated with JAK2 point mutation consistent with myeloproliferative syndrome. Path comment: While the morphologic changes would be compatible with a myeloproliferative syndrome, they are not specific for this as similar findings can be seen in reactive conditions. However, a molecular diagnostic test demonstrated a positive JAK2 point mutation which would support the diagnosis of myeloproliferative syndrome. In summary, the combined histologic and molecular diagnostic findings support a myeloproliferative syndrome. The differential diagnosis would be between polycythemia vera and essential thrombocythemia. Subsequent clinical diagnosis: polycythemia vera.
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Follow the instructions in the SEER manual on pages 1-4 to determine reportability.
Code the histology using all information available for the case. If the clinician reviews the case and states a particular histology based on his/her review, code that histology.
The clinician has access to all of the information available for this case. He/she uses his/her expertise to form a clinical diagnosis.
For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.
MP/H Rules--Breast: How many primaries for the following?
Breast lumpectomy: Three foci of invasive ductal carcinoma.
Tumor nodule #1 - Invasive ductal carcinoma.
Tumor nodule #2 - Invasive ductal carcinoma with tubular features.
Tumor nodule #3 - Invasive tubular carcinoma.
See Discussion.
According to the MP/H rules, this case is reportable as three primaries with histologies coded 8500, 8523 and 8211. However, our QC staff is having a problem accepting this. When the pathologist specifies that a ductal carcinoma has tubular features or is tubular type, isn't s/he saying that tubular is a type of duct? In addition, the first line of the FDx states, "Three foci of ductal carcinoma," which indicates that the pathologists interprets the three nodules to be ductal carcinoma.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
These three tumors are three separate primaries. Rule M12 applies.
According to the 2007 MP/H rules, tubular carcinoma is not a type of duct carcinoma.
Among the paramount reasons for writing the MP/H rules are the non-standard usage of nomenclature by physicians and the inconsistency in interpretation of these non-standard phrases. The MP/H rules must be applied consistently by each cancer registrar in order for data to be comparable across registries.
Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: How is this field coded when a re-excision follows a prior mastectomy?
Code the most extensive surgery in Surgery of Primary Site. This is a cumulative field. Assign the appropriate code including all surgeries of the primary site performed during the first course of treatment.
The correct code for mastectomy followed by re-excision will depend on the extent of the re-excision. For example, if the re-excision removed muscle, code radical mastectomy.
CS Tumor Size--Lung: If a 5/11/07 CT showed a 6.5 cm LLL mass and a 7/24/07 CT showed 8.4 cm LLL mass, do we code the larger tumor size identified within four months of diagnosis or do we code the first size documented at the time of diagnosis?
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.Code the larger tumor size.
Histology: Must every word in the ICD-O-3 code definition appear in the diagnosis in order to assign that ICD-O-3 code? See Discussion.
Is the diagnosis "Acute myeloid leukemia, M2" coded to Acute myeloid leukemia with maturation, FAB M2, NOS, (9874/3) or to Acute myeloid leukemia, NOS, (9861/3)?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:The general instructions for assigning histology codes are to code as precisely as possible. Acute myeloid leukemia with maturation is the definition of the FAB M2 category. A pathologist does not need to provide every word in the term associated with an ICD-O code; pathologists don't always talk that way. AML M2 is a very specific diagnosis and should be coded to 9874/3.
For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.
An official website of the United States government
Home