Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20071118 | 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. |
2007 | |
|
|
20100025 | MP/H Rules/Primary site--Kidney, Renal Pelvis: Should the primary site be changed to C689 [Urinary system, NOS] for a primary renal pelvis tumor after additional tumors are found months later in different urinary sites (e.g., bladder or ureter) and the MP/H Rules indicate these are all the same primary? See Discussion. |
In a patient is diagnosed 1/29/08 with an invasive grade 3 of 3 papillary urothelial cell carcinoma arising in the depth of a calyx in mid portion of kidney, the primary site was coded C659 [Renal pelvis]. In 6/1/09 a TURBT showed three separate lesions on the right side of the bladder. The final diagnosis was high grade urothelial carcinoma in-situ with three tumors, the largest being 7mm. Per rule M8, the renal pelvis primary and subsequent bladder tumors are the same primary. Would the primary site be changed to C689 [Urinary system, NOS] when the bladder tumors were identified? Or is C689 only coded if more than one primary site is involved at diagnosis? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M8 applies. This is a single primary. The primary site was coded to C659 in 2008. Do not change the primary site code. |
2010 |
|
|
20091121 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Brain: Does a patient diagnosed with anaplastic astrocytoma of the left temporal lobe in 2000 followed by a diagnosis of oligoastrocytoma of the right frontal lobe in 2007 have a single primary per rule M7 or multiple primaries per rule M8? See Discussion. | MP/H rule M7 states that tumors with ICD-O-3 histologies on the same branch in chart 1 are a single primary. Chart 1 shows that both of the histologies for our sample case are located on the glial branch. However, the glial tumor branch has three secondary branches. Does rule M7 apply to secondary branches? Anaplastic astrocytoma [9402] is classified under the secondary branch for astrocytic tumors. Oligoastrocytoma [9382] is classified under the secondary branch for mixed glioma. Does rule M7 or does rule M8 apply for this case? Does this case represent one or two primaries? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M8 applies. There are two primaries.
Anaplastic astrocytoma and oligoastrocytoma (mixed glioma) are on separate branches in Chart 1. They are both gliomas, but one is a mixed glioma and the other is an astrocytic tumor. |
2009 |
|
|
20091110 | MP/H Rules--Bladder: Should an invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder diagnosed in 2004 followed by an in situ urothelial carcinoma of the ureter diagnosed in 2008 be reported as multiple primaries per the three-year guideline in Rule M7 or a single primary per the subsite guideline in Rule M8? See Discussion. | Rule M7 states, "Tumors diagnosed more than three (3) years apart are multiple primaries." Should this rule be modified to say, "Bladder tumors diagnosed more than three (3) years apart are multiple primaries"? Does Rule M7 apply to only bladder tumors or does this rule apply to tumors in any of the urinary sites similarly to Rule M8 which states, "Urothelial tumors in two or more of the following sites are a single primary: Renal pelvis (C659) Ureter (C669) Bladder (C670-C679) Urethra/prostatic urethra (C680)"? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M7 pertains to renal pelvis, ureter, bladder and other urinary sites as defined by the topography codes listed in the header of these rules.
An invasive urothelial bladder tumor followed more than three years later by an in situ TCC of the ureter are reported separate primaries. Rule M8 applies when the tumors in these sites are diagnosed within three years of each other.
|
2009 |
|
|
20081064 | MP/H Rules--Bladder: Is a TURBT in 4/07 that demonstrates papillary carcinoma (8130/3) followed two weeks later with biopsies that demonstrate high grade flat dysplasia/carcinoma in situ (8010/2) two primaries? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, rule M6 applies and this is a single primary. Flat transitional cell carcinoma and carcinoma in situ of the bladder are synonymous. See the definition of "Flat Tumor (bladder)/Noninvasive flat TCC" in the Urinary Terms and Definitions section of the 2007 MP/H manual. |
2008 | |
|
|
20091119 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries are to be reported for an adenocarcinoma of the lung in the right middle lobe of the lung and bronchioalveolar carcinoma, non-mucinous type in the right upper lobe? See Discussion. |
Bilobectomy revealed two tumors, adenocarcinoma in the right middle lobe and bronchioalveoar carcinoma non-mucinous type in the right upper lobe. MP/H rule M10 states that tumors with non-small cell carcinoma (8046) and a more specific non-small cell type (chart 1) are a single primary. Does rule M10 apply to only those cases for which one tumor is stated to be non-small cell, NOS? Or do we use chart 1 to identify specific subtypes? For this case, using chart 1, would we note that bronchioalveolar is a subtype of adenocarcinoma and count this case as a single primary? Most of the MP/H rules schemas have a rule making an adenocarcinoma and a more specific type of adenocarcinoma a single primary. Would we apply rule M10 to this case and count it as a single primary? Or would we move on to rule M11 and count the case as two primaries? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M11 applies. Accession two primaries. Rule M10 applies only to cases for which one tumor is stated to be "non-small cell carcinoma." |
2009 |
|
|
20071040 | MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Melanoma: Is there a difference between multiple primary rules M6 and M7 because both rules state that tumors occurring more than 60 days apart are to be reported as multiple primaries? See Discussion. | Rule M6 clearly states that an invasive melanoma occurring more than 60 days after an in situ melanoma is a multiple primary. However M7 states that any melanomas diagnosed more than 60 days apart are multiple primaries. Since M7 does not state malignant melanomas diagnosed more than 60 days apart, this implies that any scenario: in situ following an invasive, invasive following an in situ, in situ following an in situ, or invasive following an invasive are all multiple primaries if more than 60 days apart. If that is the intent of M7, then M6 is totally unnecessary. If the intent of M7 is only for an invasive following an invasive, then the word malignant needs to be inserted as the first word of rule M7. |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, M7 is intended to apply to in situ and invasive melanomas. Therefore, M6 and M7 are repetitive. This will be corrected when revisions are made to the MP/H rules. In the meantime, both M6 and M7 result in multiple primaries so it does not matter which rule is used. |
2007 |
|
|
20110057 | MP/H Rules/Behavior--Appendix: How do you code mucinous cancers of the appendix? Is a "low grade mucinous appendix tumor/neoplasm" with peritoneal spread reportable? See Discussion. |
Low grade mucinous neoplasms can spread to the peritoneal cavity and in that sense are metastatic but histologically have bland/benign features (may be a benign cystadenoma that ruptured and spread by rupturing) are not a carcinoma. Thus, some have termed this group as DPAM (diseminated peritoneal adenomucinous) and not a true carcinoma. Others indicate that if you have metastasis the tumor is a carcinoma. |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, low-grade mucinous tumors of the appendix are a /1, borderline/uncertain behavior, and not reportable. These tumors do spread to the peritoneal cavity (pseudomyxoma peritonei). This spread, or deposits, or implants are also borderline/uncertain behavior and do not make the appendiceal tumor reportable. By contrast, a high-grade mucinous tumor of the appendix may produce malignant/invasive pseudomyxoma peritonei. When the pseudomyxoma peritonei are diagnosed as invasive or malignant, the mucinous tumor in the appendix is reportable as a /3. |
2011 |
|
|
20091120 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Esophagus: Should the modifying expression "with areas of" be used to code histology? See Discussion. |
Patient was found to have two tumors in the esophagus. The large tumor was diagnosed as adenocarcinoma with areas of neuroendocrine differentiation (small cell carcinoma). The smaller tumor was diagnosed as small cell carcinoma. If we accept the "areas of" to be part of the diagnosis, rule H16 indicates that histology for the large tumor would be coded 8045 (combined small cell and adenocarcinoma). If we ignore the "areas of," then histology for the large tumor would be coded to 8140 (adenocarcinoma). Either way, when counting primaries, rule M17 would be applied and the two tumors would be classified as separate primaries. However, it seems that the two tumors are probably the same disease process since they both show small cell carcinoma. |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, do not use the modifying expression "with areas of" to determine a more specific histology per rule H13 in the MP/H rules. |
2009 |
|
|
20081111 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: If an in situ carcinoma diagnosed in 2007 demonstrates comedo necrosis, should the histology be coded to comedocarcinoma in situ? See Discussion. |
According to the new MP/H rules, we code descriptive features. There is no coding guidance or reference to "necrosis" within the breast MP/H rules. Based on SEER SINQ 20021002, the "comedo necrosis" would not be coded at all for pre-2007 cases. Does this still hold true for cases diagnosed after January 1, 2007? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, comedo necrosis is not synonymous with comedocarcinoma. If no further information is available for this case, code as carcinoma in situ. |
2008 |
An official website of the United States government
