Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20091023 | Sugery of Primary Site--Breast: When a patient is simultaneously diagnosed with bilateral breast cancer and bilateral mastectomies are done, do you code the total mastectomies to 40 or 41 or 42? | Abstract cancer of the left breast and cancer of the right breast as separate primaries. Code the surgery for each primary independent of the other primary. For the first primary, assign code 41 [Total (simple) mastectomy, NOS WITHOUT removal of uninvolved contralateral breast]. For the second primary, assign the code for the procedure performed on that site. |
2009 | |
|
|
20180079 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be abstracted when papillary carcinoma is identified in two biopsies and a subsequent lumpectomy identified invasive ductal carcinoma with multifocal ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)? See Discussion. |
The right breast ultrasound shows a 1.4 cm mass at 8 o'clock and a separate mass .6 cm at 7 o'clock (site code for both C50.5). Pathology report: Right 8 o'clock core needle biopsy fragments of intracystic noninvasive papillary carcinoma (8504/2), right 7 o'clock core needle biopsy fragments of intracystic noninvasive papillary carcinoma (8504/2). Then, another facility performs a right breast lumpectomy (operative note not available). Outside Facility: Right breast lumpectomy pathology shows invasive ductal carcinoma .6cm (8500/3) multifocal DCIS .5cm greatest dimension tumor site right breast NOS. Should we use Rule M12-Abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in Table 3 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions. Timing is irrelevant. Note: Each row in the table is a distinctly different histology. So would this be two primaries C50.5 (8504/2) and C50.9 (8500/3)? |
Abstract as multiple primaries using Breast Solid Tumor Rule M12 as these are separate, non-contiguous tumors on different rows in Table 3. |
2018 |
|
|
20210064 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018/2021)/Multiple primaries--Ovary: How many primaries should be reported when patient has right fallopian tube high-grade serous carcinoma and bilateral serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC)? See Discussion. |
Patient is diagnosed March 2021, with malignant pleural effusion, clinical impression supports either endometrial or tubo-ovarian primary and neoadjuvant chemotherapy is given. Subsequent total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAH/BSO) in July, shows high-grade serous carcinoma involving the right fallopian tube and bilateral ovaries, as well as bilateral STIC. Summary Stage lists tumor site as right fallopian tube, with the serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC) noted under “additional findings.” Should the contralateral (left-sided) STIC be accessioned as an additional primary, per MP/H Rule M8, the since fallopian tubes are listed in Table 1 as Paired Organs with Laterality? |
Abstract as multiple primaries per rule M8. There are bilateral fallopian tube primaries. It sounds like the "primary" tumor was identified in the right fallopian tube with bilateral spread of disease. Incidental STIC was also identifed in the left fallopian tube. Do not record the STIC as another primary. |
2021 |
|
|
20240005 | SEER Manual/Mets at Diagnosis--Lung: Would calvarium lesions invading the brain be both brain and bone metastasis or only bone metastasis? See Discussion. |
Lung cancer, 2022 12/1/2022 PET/CT showed destructive hypermetabolic bone lesions in right frontal and left posterior calvarium. Left posterior calvarium lesion involves portions of left parietal and temporal bones w/invasion of mastoid air cells. 1/4/2023 MRI Brain showed large destructive mass involving left posterior temporal calvarium that extends into left mastoid region and may invade left distal transverse sinus. 2/8/2023 Radiation Oncology follow-up note: MD states there are extensive calvarium metastasis with the left parietal lesion invading the brain causing edema and MS-like changes. 2/13/23 Radiation Oncology Final Letter- Patient was treated with 1 EBRT fraction aimed at brain/skull before enrolling in hospice. |
Abstract as bone metastasis for the first two examples. Abstract as both bone and brain metastasis for the third and fourth examples in the respective Mets at Diagnosis fields based on the description provided. |
2024 |
|
|
20110145 | MP/H Rules/Recurrence--Skin: If a pathologist does not review the August 2008 slides, how many primaries are accessioned for a patient diagnosed and treated for a dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans of the left upper inner arm in August 2008 who subsequently had a "recurrence" noted in October 2010 located in the scar of the original primary? | Abstract as a single primary: dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans [8832/3] of the left upper inner arm [C446] diagnosed in August 2008.
The rationale for this answer was provided by subject matter experts. The physician specialists for soft tissue and bone replied as follows:
Low-grade sarcomas tend to recur locally. Because this tumor recurred in same area, i.e. scar of prior surgery, and recurred in this period of time, this is a local recurrence. Dermatofibrosarcoma Protuberans is a low grade tumor which can recur many years following tumor excision. |
2011 | |
|
|
20170017 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Liver: How many primaries of the same site and histology are reported if tumors appear years apart but neither is surgically removed? See Discussion. |
Patient has an April 2009 biopsy proven diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma with a single liver mass in segment 4 that was treated with TACE and systemic chemotherapy. The treated lesion was stated to be stable in subsequent scans performed between 2010 and late 2015. December 2015 imaging identified a new mass in the left hepatic lobe consistent with cholangiocarcinoma. Is the 2015 tumor a new primary? In auditing files for expected (but not received) abstracts due from facilities, we've observed these types of cases not being consistently reported as multiple primaries. |
Abstract as a single primary. The 2009 liver tumor remained "stable" following treatment and the patient was never disease free. |
2017 |
|
|
20230072 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Bladder: How many primaries and what M Rule applies to a diagnosis of non-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder in 1996, followed by multifocal non-invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma involving bladder, prostatic urethra, and left ureter in 2022? See Discussion. |
An argument could be made to apply Rule M10 (timing rule which may result in reporting the case as an additional primary) because the 2022 primary included multiple non-invasive urothelial carcinoma tumors in both the bladder and other urinary sites (coded to site C689, not C679) following a long disease-free interval. While Rule M10 excludes multiple bladder tumors, does that also apply when new, multifocal urothelial tumors arise in both bladder and other urinary sites? Does the presence of any subsequent bladder tumor rule out the use of M10 and one must use M11 that indicates reporting this disease process is a single primary? |
Abstract as a new primary per rule M10, as the subsequent tumors are not limited to the bladder. Code the primary site to C689, per Instructions for Coding Primary Site, #4: "Code Urinary System NOS C689 when there are multiple non-contiguous tumors in multiple organs within the urinary system", and following Note: "The physician subject matter experts (SME) discussed the issue of coding primary site for multifocal/multicentric urinary tract carcinoma. Although the SMEs understood and acknowledged the importance of coding a specific primary site, there is no literature or criteria for determining the organ of origin for multiple tumors involving multiple urinary sites". |
2023 |
|
|
20210027 | Reportability--Heme and Lympoid Neoplasms--Polycythemia vera: Is secondary polycythemia vera reportable? See Discussion. |
A physician stated the patient likely had secondary polycythemia vera due to cardiac and pulmonary conditions but that a polycythemia vera could not be ruled out. A JAK2 was ordered that was positive for JAK2 V617F mutation. The patient was treated with hydrea. According to SEER SINQ 20120049, secondary polycythemia vera is not reportable. However, in this case, the patient was positive for JAK2 V617F mutation. Therefore, is this reportable? We looked for guidance in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms Database and found it confusing that secondary polycythemia vera was not mentioned or discussed under polycythemia vera in the database. The only thing we could find was secondary polycythemia NOS that was discussed under polycythemia. |
Abstract as a new primary for polycythemia vera, 9950/3. JAK2 is commonly used to assess suspected polycythemia vera and in this case, the mutation is positive for V617F. Based on the JAK2 results, this looks like a true polycythemia vera and not a secondary polycythemia. |
2021 |
|
|
20160075 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What histology code(s) and MP/H rule applies for a breast resection final diagnosis of "undifferentiated sarcoma associated with a malignant phyllodes tumor and a tumor size of approximately 7 x 6.5 x 4 cm"? (The tumor is primarily sarcoma, with the phyllodes tumor measuring 2.8 cm)? See Discussion. |
Patient has a diagnosis of undifferentiated sarcoma with an associated malignant phyllodes tumor in a single mass. Should this be abstracted as two primaries, one for an undifferentiated sarcoma and the other for a malignant phyllodes tumor? Which MP/H rule applies? |
Abstract a single primary. Based on the information provided, this is a single tumor, and therefore a single primary, Rule M3. Code the histology to malignant phyllodes tumor. According to our expert pathologist consultant, "The presence of a phyllodes tumor component identifies the whole thing as such. Stromal overgrowth/sarcoma is the usual identifier of malignancy in a phyllodes tumor. (If there were no phyllodes component we would be left with undifferentiated sarcoma, but that is not the case here. The diagnosis of malignancy in phyllodes tumor may be difficult/problematic when there is no overt stromal/sarcoma overgrowth as in this case.) As an aside, the behaviors of pure sarcoma and a phyllodes tumor such as we have here are similar, but we would lose the primary diagnosis if we just called this sarcoma." |
2016 |
|
|
20140046 | MP/H/Multiple Primaries--Urinary: Is this one primary with a C689 primary code and morphology 8130/3? Or is this 2 primaries: 1. C679 8130/3 and 2.C680 8120/2. See discussion. |
Urinary: Transitional Cell Carcinoma and open prostatectomy: Path from Bladder: Papillary and solid transitional cell carcinoma of bladder - grade II and III Stage A.
Path from prostatectomy: The prostatic tissue samples shows areas of urothelia carcinoma in situ - related to the tumor present in the bladder.
Conclusion: Prostatectomy showing foci of transitional cell carcinoma in situ of prostatic urethra. |
Abstract a single primary, C679 8130/3. Rules M2 and H4 apply. Transitional cell/urothelial carcinoma in the prostatic urethra is likely an extension from the known bladder TCC in this case, not a separate primary. See prostatic urethra on page 63 in the Urinary Terms and Definitions, http://www.seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/mphrules_definitions.pdf |
2014 |
An official website of the United States government
