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: 07/25/2024 16:16 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20100093

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries: Please clarify how rule M10 for Other Sites was developed and how a "recurrence" of the tumor after one year was determined to be a new primary? See Discussion.

What is the expected outcome or result of rule M10? Specifically, for soft tissue sarcomas, why is a recurrence after one year a new primary instead of a recurrence?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Rule M10, tumors occurring more than one year apart are multiple primaries, was developed to differentiate a new primary from a recurrence. The rule was developed with the concurrence of the CoC site-specialty physicians and the SEER consulting pathologist. There was agreement between all of the CoC site teams and the consulting pathologist that statements of recurrence should not be relied upon to rule out a new primary. The time limits for each site were set based on information from peer-reviewed articles on tumors occurring in the same site and studies using molecular studies to confirm whether or not the tumors were histologically similar. Determination of the time limit for the "other sites" rules was probably the most difficult because so many sites are involved. However, the specialty-physicians felt that one year was an appropriate length of time to apply to these sites.

 2010
20071026 MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: When the microscopic description indicates a colon tumor is "tubulovillous," but the final diagnosis only states "adenocarcinoma," is the histology coded to 8263/3 [adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma]?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Yes. This is an example of a site-specific exception to the general rule to code only from the final diagnosis. The Colon Histology Rules specifically state that "other parts of the pathology report" may be used to identify a tumor arising from a polyp, adenomatous polyp, villous adenoma, or tubulovillous adenoma.

 2007
20071038 MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is it generally correct that the code for PNET [9473/3] should be used to code tumors arising in the brain and spinal cord, and the code for pPNET [9364/3] should be used to code tumors arising in the bone and soft tissue? See Discussion.

The terms and definitions for "Brain" in the 2007 MP/H rules distinguish between pPNET and PNET. Is it correct even when the diagnostic terminology alone would lead to other coding, such as "PNET" used to diagnose a soft tissue mass in the chest and "neuroectodermal tumor" used to diagnose a brain mass?

Should additional rules be added to both "Brain" and "Other Sites" to enforce this distinction?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Yes. Assign code 9473/3 for tumors arising in the brain and spinal cord and assign code 9364/3 for tumors arising in the bone and soft tissue.

Clarification and reinforcement of this distinction will be added to the "Other sites" terms and definitions with the first revision to the MP/H rules.

 2007
20071051 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.

 2007
20091012 MP/H Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: If the final diagnosis states "see microscopic description," can the micro information be used to code the histology? See Discussion. In regards to coding histology for 2007 and forward cases, we are instructed to use the final diagnosis, and any addenda or comments associated with the final diagnosis. We are not to use the microscopic description. However, we are seeing pathology reports with a final diagnosis that also includes the notation "see microscopic description" or "see description". Example: "Left Parotid: High grade carcinoma involving deep lobe with marginal extension. See description." The microscopic description goes on to describe the carcinoma in more detail, which includes a statement "consistent with the ductal type of primary parotid carcinoma." Can we use this microscopic description or not?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

When the final diagnosis indicates that the microscopic section contains the detailed diagnosis, use the microscopic description to code the histology.

Otherwise, code from the final diagnosis only and not from the microscopic description. The final diagnosis is usually the pathologist's conclusion after consideration of the various choices listed in the microscopic description. The histology code should represent the pathologist's final conclusion.

 2009
20081031

MP/H Rules--Breast: How many primaries are abstracted if a mastectomy specimen reveals two separate invasive tumors:

#1: Invasive apocrine carcinoma, poorly differentiated, 1.2cm, (9 o'clock). -Apocrine ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), high-grade with comedo necrosis; 2.0cm (9:30 o'clock).

#2: Invasive ductal carcinoma, well-differentiated, 1.0cm (12:30 o'clock). -Minor component of DCIS, low-grade? See Discussion.

 In the MP/H Rules, Table 1 lists apocrine as a type of intraductal carcinoma. Apocrine does not appear in Table 2, the list of specific duct carcinomas. If Apocrine is a type of ductal carcinoma, then Rule M11 would make this a single primary. If it is a single primary, what is the histology?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Using rule M11, there is one primary in the left breast. Apocrine is a specific duct carcinoma. To make this more clear, apocrine will be added to Table 2 in a future revision.

To code the histology, go to the multiple tumors module and start with rule H20. Stop at rule H29 and code the histology with the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code, 8500/3.

 2008
20081085 MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: Per MP/H rule H3 for colon, code 8144/3 [Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type] should not be used with C180-C189 [colon]. However, page 58 of the ICD-O-3 SEER Site/Histology Validation list of February 9, 2001 lists code 8144/3 as a valid histology for large intestine. See Discussion. None of the errata have this site/histo combination. It is causing problems with researchers because pathologists still use the term: Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type for tumors of the large bowel. Please clarify or print errata.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

This issue has been presented to the Edits work group. The preliminary response is that 8144/3 will be removed from the valid site/histology list for large intestine, small intestine, and rectum.

The edits based on the site/type list are used by many organizations. Any change to the site/type list is taken to the Edits work group.

 2008
20071083 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Bladder/Renal Pelvis: Is a non-invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder diagnosed one year after the occurrence of an invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the renal pelvis reported as one or two primaries?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

This is a single primary with renal pelvis as primary site.

Use the 2007 MP/H rules to determine if the 2007 diagnosis is a new primary. Use the Urinary rules, multiple tumors module. Start with rule M3. Follow the rules down to Rule M8 and stop. This is an example of implantation effect.

 2007
20081041 MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: How many primaries are to be reported and what histology is to be coded for an anaplastic/undifferentiated thyroid carcinoma with sarcomatoid transformation likely arising in association with a papillary thyroid carcinoma? Thyroid contains one tumor: 12.5 cm in greatest dimension...almost completely replaces entire thryroid gland.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

This is a single primary using rule M2; a single tumor is always a single primary.

The histology code for this case is 8260/3 [Papillary carcinoma of thyroid]. Begin with Histology Coding rule H8. Stop at rule H17 and code the histology with the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code.

 2008
20071087 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.

 2007