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: 12/29/2025 09:48 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20081120 MP/H Rules--Sarcoma: How many primaries should be abstracted for chondrosarcoma of right toe in 2002, of right lower leg in 2006 and right tibia in 2007? See Discussion. A patient had a myxoid chondrosarcoma of the right toe in 2002. This was amputated and staged as T2 - high grade. Patient had a recurrence in the lower right leg in 2006. At this time he had a below knee amputation. The tumor in 2006 was stated to be similar histologically to the 2002 tumor with pathologic comparison done. Then in 2007 the patient presents with pain in right knee and stump. CT says compatible with recurrent disease, but no copies of path sent. Patient then had an above knee amputation, with diagnosis of clinically recurrent chondrosarcoma of tibia. How many primaries should be abstracted? Is 2007 diagnosis a new primary?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Abstract two primaries in this case, 2002 and 2007.

The first primary was diagnosed in 2002. The 2006 diagnosis would not be a new primary according to the rules in effect at that time (2004 SEER manual, page 11, rule 5, exception 1).

Use the current MP/H rules to compare the 2007 diagnosis to the 2002 diagnosis. Start with rule M3 and stop at rule M10. The 2007 diagnosis is a separate primary.

 2008
20081051 MP/H Rules/Histology--Prostate: Path said adenocarcinoma of the prostate with an endometroid adenocarcinoma component. What histology code is used?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Assign code 8500 [duct carcinoma].

According to The World Health Organization (WHO), the term endometrioid carcinoma of the prostate is now called Prostate Duct Carcinoma.

Using Rule H11 (one type), code 8500 (duct carcinoma) for this rare type of tumor. Do not stop at Rule H10 because this is not acinar.

 2008
20081114

Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is hygroma reportable? See Discussion.

Benign brain guidelines indicate that named tumors that have been assigned an ICD-O-3 code are reportable. However, per I&R: "Most cystic hygromas (9173/0) are fetal malformations and occur in patients less than two years old. If this patient was an adult, they are primarily treated with surgery. Hygroma (used in a general sense) is a response to trauma (i.e., subdural hematoma) and as such, is not a "new growth" and would not be reportable either as a cyst or as a neoplasm. Unless the patient had some sort of operation, I'd hesitate to include the case as a reportable benign tumor."

How is the cancer registrar to distinguish between reportable and non-reportable hygromas? Example: Brain MRI showed diffuse cerebral volume loss and incidental bilateral frontal subdural hygromas (histology code 9173/0).

Reference: I&R 14825

Hygromas are not reportable. This instruction will be added to the next revision of the benign brain rules.

According to an expert in the field, hygromas are not neoplastic. Hygromas are cystic dilations of a localized subarachnoid or subdural accumulation of clear fluid related to an excess accumulation of CSF, typically related to an old hemorrhage that somehow prevents reabsorption of CSF.

 2008
20081107 Multiplicity Counter/Ambiguous terminology: How should these fields be coded for cases with an unknown date of diagnosis? If the date of diagnosis is unknown, it is likely that you have little information for this case. Both multiplicity counter and ambiguous terminology fields would probably be coded as unknown. However, if information on the number of tumors and the diagnostic confirmation are available, code these fields as specified in the manual. 2008
20081130 MP/H Rules--Breast: What histology code is used for lobular with focal ductal features? Do we ignore the focal features and code as lobular or do we use the combination code for duct and lobular? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H14 and assign code 8520 [lobular]. Ignore histologies described as "focal," "foci," or "focus." This instruction will be added to the next version of the MP/H manual. 2008
20081131 MP/H Rules--Colon: What histology would you assign to a single tumor with the histology 'well differentiated mucinous cystadenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma confined to the appendix'? Does rule H4 apply to this diagnosis or should we continue on in the rules to H14 and code the higher histology?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H4.

Stop at the first rule that applies to the case. Rule H4 is the first rule that applies.

The polyp rule, H4, comes before many of the other colon rules because it is important to know that the malignancy originated in a polyp.

 2008
20081139 Date Multiple Tumors--Prostate: For a prostate biopsy done 10/20/08, both lobes involved with tumor, unknown how many tumors, what would be coded in date of multiple tumors? In this case, code the date of the biopsy in Date of Multiple Tumors [10202008]. When the number of tumors is unknown, code the date of diagnosis as the Date of Multiple Tumors. This is the date on which it was determined that there were an unknown number of tumors. This instruction will be added to next edition of the MP/H manual. 2008
20081063 MP/H Rules--Breast: How many primaries should be abstracted when a patient has a mass at 6:00 that showed poorly differentiated ductal carcinoma and a hypoechoic nodule at 9:00 that was excised with no real tumor present there though path showed angiolymphatic invasion by carcinoma throughout the entire specimen? See Discussion.

Palpable mass in right breast at 6:00. Path stated 'poorly differentiated ductal carcinoma with extensive necrosis and extensive angiolymphatic invasion. Focal high grade comedocarcinoma (1%)'. Another hypoechoic nodule was seen at the 9:00 position. This mass was excised from surrounding tissue. This mass was more like an inflammatory mass; there was no real tumor present there. Path report stated "Breast mass 9:00 excisional biopsy - angiolymphatic invasion by mammary carcinoma throughout the entire specimen."

Is this two primaries because of the two different histology codes: 8500 and 8010?

 For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract as a single primary using rule M3 (a single tumor is always a single primary). There was one tumor present according to the information provided. The second specimen was not a separate tumor ("There was no real tumor present there"). 2008
20081101

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: If a 1.7 cm LUL lung tumor is not treated surgically, would a 2.1 cm tumor in the same lobe three years later be a new primary? See Discussion.

In 2004 the patient has a 1.7cm squamous cell carcinoma diagnosed in the LUL of the lung treated with radiation and chemotherapy. In 2007, the patient was diagnosed with a 2.1cm squamous cell carcinoma in the LUL treated with radiation. According to the lung MP/H rules, the 2007 tumor would be a new primary. Given that there was no surgery, would the second tumor be progression of disease or would it be a new primary?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

If the tumor diagnosed in 2004 was successfully treated and disappeared, apply the MP/H rules for lung. According to rule M8, the 2004 tumor and the 2007 tumor are multiple primaries. If there was no disease-free interval between tumor occurrences, that is, if the 2007 tumor is still the same tumor that was diagnosed in 2004, the MP/H rules do not apply.

 2008
20081039 Diagnostic Confirmation/Histology--Hematopoietic: How are these fields coded when the final pathologic diagnosis for a bone marrow biopsy differs from the final clinical diagnosis of a hematopoietic disease? See Discussion.

Frequently, pathology reports describe hematopoietic diseases using ambiguous terms. Flow cytology and cytogenetics may be obtained. It appears that the clinician is the person who pulls all the information together for a diagnosis.

Example: Bone marrow biopsy is most compatible with chronic phase myeloproliferative disease. Path comment: Differential would include CML. Outside hematology report indicates an elevated peripheral WBC, primarily neutrophils. Flow cytometry showed 1.0 % of the white cells are myeloid blasts of abnormal phenotype, additionally finding 7.3 % basophils. Flow reported peripheral blasts at 1.2 % and peripheral basophilia. Cytogenetics report showed abnormality with trisomy of chromosomes 13 and 21. This finding is consistent with a clonal abnormality suggestive of acquired disease. Results were consistent with the absence of the t(9,22)(q34;q11) translocation or fusion product associated with CML. Subsequent clinical impression: Bone marrow evaluation most consistent with CML. Overall features most consistent with CML.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field as 1 [positive histology]. Code the ICD-O-3 morphology based on the clinician's statement.

The code in Diagnostic Confirmation pertains to the best method used to confirm the presence of cancer over the entire course of the disease. Therefore, if a bone marrow report confirms cancer, code 1 [positive histology] in Diagnostic Confirmation.

Code the histology using all of the information available. The clinician has access to all of the information relating to this case. The pathologist had only the bone marrow. Code the histology recorded by the clinician.

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.

 2008