MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries are abstracted when bilateral breasts contain DCIS? Is a physician statement referring to this situation as one primary ignored? See Discussion.
Patient has microcalcifications both breasts. Has bilateral mastectomy. Path report states Left breast multifocal DCIS predominantly micropapillary. Right breast two foci of DCIS micropapillary.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
There are two primaries in this case.
Using the 2007 MP/H rules for breast, go to the multiple tumors module and start with Rule M4. Stop at rule M7. Tumors on both sides (right and left) are multple primaries.
Always use the 2007 Multiple Primary rules to determine the number of primaries. Do not use the physician statement.
MP/H Rules--Lung: Why the term "nodule" is not included as an equivalent term along with tumor, mass, lesion and neoplasm in the 2007 lung multiple primary rules?
Answer revised July 2008
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
For the purpose of applying the Lung MP/H rules, the word "Nodule" can be used interchageably with "Tumor," "Mass," "Lesion" and "Neoplasm." HOWEVER, this does NOT apply to casefinding or staging.
This revision will be added to the next version of the MP/H rules. Sinq question 20071028 will be revised.
Date of Diagnosis: Can the phrase "suspicious for a primary lung tumor" from a CT be used to code date of diagnosis? See Discussion.
Thorax CT on 4/18/05 states 'enlarged RUL nodular opacity suspicious for a primary lung tumor.' Biopsy confirmation was not done until 8/4/05 because patient declined further work-up until then. Would date of diagnoses be 4/18/05 or 8/4/05?
Code the diagnosis date 08/04/2005 based on the biopsy.
The statement "suspicious for a primary tumor" is not a clinical diagnosis of cancer or malignancy.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: How is histology coded when the final pathology diagnosis is "adenocarcinoma with extensive mucinous features" and the percent of mucinous features is not stated?
Code 8140 using rule H6. Rule H6 applies because the percent of mucinous is not specified.
MP/H rules/Histology--Breast: How many primaries and what histologies are coded for a left breast when a bi-lumpectomy path reveals one tumor with a microscopic focus of mucinous adenocarcinoma and extensive DCIS and a second .9 cm mucinous adenocarcinoma with extensive DCIS, and the subsequent mastectomy reveals foci of residual DCIS and Paget's disease of the nipple?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
There are two primaries. Primary 1: The two tumors described on the pathology report from the lumpectomy are a single primary using rule M13. Primary 2: Disregard the foci of residual DCIS. Paget disease of the nipple is a separate primary using rule M12.
Primary 1: invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma and extensive ductal carcinoma in situ: Code the histology as 8480/3 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] using rule H27.
Primary 2: Paget disease of nipple: Code the histology as 8540/3 [Paget disease] using rule H14.
Multiplicity Counter-Breast: The general instructions say to ignore separate microscopic foci when determining when to use the single tumor or multiple tumor modules. Do these instructions apply if sizes are given for the foci? See Discussion.
For instance, would a 1.2 cm breast tumor with 3 scattered microscopic foci ranging from 2-4 mm be treated as multiple tumors (4), or as a single tumor?
If the microscopic foci are measured and listed as part of the diagnosis, they should be counted as multiple tumors.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: What histology would be coded when the right colon demonstrates a combined adenocarcinoma and high grade small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma [forming the dominant component] arising in a villotubular adenoma and the liver biopsy demonstrates metastatic high grade small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, start with rule H1 in the Single Tumor module. Stop at rule H4. Assign code 8263 [adenocarcinoma in tubulovillous adenoma].
Stop at the first rule that applies. Code histology based on a specimen from the primary site whenever available.
Primary Site: For malignant gastrointestinal tumors (GISTs), how should the primary site be coded and which Collaborative Stage and TNM staging schemes should be used for disease found in the stomach, small intestine or other locations?
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 primary site to the location where the GIST originated. If the primary site cannot be determined, assign code C809 [Unknown primary site].
GIST of gastrointestinal hollow viscera cannot be staged in TNM.
In Collaborative Staging, use the stomach scheme for GIST of the stomach. Use the small intestine scheme for GIST of the small intestine. For GIST of other primary sites, use the CS scheme for the specific site.
CS Extension--Prostate: Should CS Clinical Extension always be coded to 99 [Extension unknown] for prostatic adenocarcinoma found incidentally during surgery for another primary or at autopsy? See Discussion.
Patient had a cystoprostatectomy for bladder cancer. Pathology report states only 2 microscopic foci of prostate adenocarcinoma found on LEFT side of gland. Physician notes state patient has been followed for 4 years with a nodule in the RIGHT prostate and has refused biopsy despite rising PSA. There was no definite statement of suspected cancer.
Should CS Clinical Extension be coded 99 because prostate cancer wasn't clearly stated to have been suspected until cystoprostatectomy? Or could we code the right-sided "nodule" as clinically apparent (CS Extension 20), even though path found tumor only on the left (which is how we would code a standard prostate case)?
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 CS extension 99 [Extension unknown]. This prostate cancer was not clinically evident; it cannot be clinically assessed based on the information provided.
Note: This is an unusual case. A DRE was performed and a nodule was palpated on the right that was not cancer. The other lobe is presumed to have been negative because it was not mentioned.
MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: Please clarify the multiple primary rule M6 and the explanatory note that states when there is a single tumor in each lung, they are to be reported as multiple primaries unless stated or proven to be metastasis. See Discussion.
Single tumor in left lung, single tumor in right lung. The rules take you to M6. Suppose the tumor in left lung is biopsied and there is a physician statement that right lung tumor is metastatic from left lung tumor. The note under M6 is "When there is a single tumor in each lung, abstract as multiple primaries unless stated or proven to be metastatic." In this case, is it a single primary or multiple primaries?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
When there is a single tumor in one lung and a single tumor in the other lung, apply rule M6 and abstract as multiple primaries. Use this rule whenever there is a single tumor in each lung, even when neither tumor is biopsied or resected.
This rule is unique to lung. Our physician advisors emphasized that it is very unlikely that a single tumor in one lung could be metastatic from a single tumor in the opposite lung. Therefore, the default is to abstract as multiple primaries.
The note at M6 means that there must be proof that one tumor is metastatic in order to abstract as a single primary. For example, a biopsy of the tumor proving that it is metastatic. An opinion or belief that one tumor is metastatic is not sufficient. In the absence of proof, use rule M6 and abstract as multiple primaries.
A list of MP/H clarifications will be available. This issue will be included on the list.
An official website of the United States government
Home