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: 11/04/2025 19:58 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20120095 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned if a patient is diagnosed with inflammatory carcinoma of the left breast, (ductal with apocrine features type on biopsy), and an incidental lobular carcinoma in the right breast? See Discussion. A 1.2 cm lobular carcinoma was incidentally discovered during the work-up of the patient's left breast that was inflammatory carcinoma. The lobular carcinoma on the right was localized without any skin involvement. Rule M6 indicates inflammatory breast carcinoma in either breast is a single primary. Does rule M6 apply when the patient has inflammatory carcinoma in one breast and a separate lobular carcinoma in the other?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession two primaries, ductal with apocrine features in the left breast and lobular carcinoma in the right breast.

The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). Go to the Breast MP rules because site specific rules exist for this primary.

Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M4. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. The patient has tumors in both the right and left breasts.

Rule M6 does not apply because inflammatory carcinoma involves only the left breast and the patient has a different histology in the right breast and there is no mention of inflammatory carcinoma in that breast. In this situation continue to the next applicable rule.

2012
20021206 EOD-Extension--Breast: The SEER coding scheme classifies the in situ portion as less than 25% [code 14] or equal to or greater than 25% [code 15]. How do you code a pathologist's statement of "less than or equal to 25%"? See discussion. "insitu ca constitutes less than or equal to 25% of the total mass."

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 14 [invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in Tumor Size AND in situ described as minimal (less than 25%)]. The pathologist did not use a code as defined by SEER. For cases described as "less than or equal to 25%", choose the lower of the two EOD code choices.

 2002
20081081 Reportability: If a dermatopathologist refers to an atypical fibroxanthoma as a malignant process, but the ICD-O-3 indicates it is a borderline process, is this a reportable case? See Discussion. "Final Diagnosis: Surface of ulcerated histologically malignant spindle cell neoplasm, consistent with atypical fibroxanthoma. Note: An exhaustive immunohistochemical work-up shows no melanocytic, epithelial or vascular differentiation. Atypical fibroxanthoma is a superficial form of a malignant fibrous histiocytoma." The pathologist has the final say on behavior. In this case, the pathologist states that this tumor is malignant in the final diagnosis. Therefore, this case is reportable. 2008
20031155 CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: Does perineural invasion affect the coding of SSF3, pathologic extension? See Description. "Adenoca scattered over a 2.5 cm region bilaterally toward the apex. Perineural invasion is identified, including within the right apex." Does this mean that there is extension into the apex?

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.For cases diagnosed 2004 and forward:

Presence or absence of perineural invasion does not affect pathologic extension. Most likely perineural invasion is still localized. It means that there is tumor found along the track of the nerves in the prostate. Where the nerves enter the prostate, the capsule is thinner than in other areas; thus pathologists make note of the potential for extracapsular extension.

The CAP Cancer Protocol for Prostate states that perineural invasion "has been associated with a high risk of extraprostatic extension...although the exact prognostic significance remains to be determined."

Based on the available information, code the case example to 023 [Involves both lobes].

 2003
20110044

MP/H Rules/Histology--Corpus uteri: What are the histologies for the primaries to be reported when the endometrium contains two separate tumors composed of adenocarcinoma with multiple differentiations as well as a separate small focus of clear cell carcinoma? See Discussion.

 

The resected specimen showed, "Adenocarcinoma of endometrium with the following features: Histologic type: Endometrioid with squamous and focal clear cell differentiation. A second focus of endometrial adenocarcinoma is present in the fundus with admixed complex atypical hyperplasia in a polypoid, non-invasive mass. The second tumor is endometrioid with secretory differentiation. COMMENT: The tissue in between the two tumors is sampled, and contains foci of endometrial adenocarcinoma that is superficially present within the endometrium, as well as a small focus of clear cell carcinoma measuring 0.2 cm."

Per MP/H rules M17, this is counted as multiple primaries because the histology codes differ at the third digit: 8323/3, 8382/3, 8310/3. The Multiple Primary rules make no reference to the histology tables. There is also no rule to ignore the in situ tumor. In addition, the histology table in the 2007 MP/H Rules Manual for Other Sites does not include "secretory differentiation" as a type of GYN malignancy.

After consultation with our expert pathologist, the decision is report this case as a single primary. There was some confusion about how to apply the current MP/H rules to this pathology report given 1) the definition of M16 and M17 and 2) the likelihood for a single endometrial primary to present with several differentiations. According to our expert pathologist, "I would regard this case as a single endometrial primary with extensive endometrial involvement and several types of differentiation, all of which are seen in endometrial carcinomas."

Next, the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual is the correct source for coding histology for cases diagnosed 2007 or later.

The following steps are used to determine the histology code.

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For an endometrial primary, use the Other Sites Histo rules to determine the histology code because endometrium does not have site specific rules.

Start with the MULTIPLE TUMORS ABSTRACTED AS A SINGLE PRIMARY module, Rule H18. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module from Rule H18 to Rule H31. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.

Code the appropriate combination/mixed code (Table 2) when there are multiple specific histologies. GYN malignancies with multiple types of adenocarcinoma have histology coded to 8323/3 [mixed cell adenocarcinoma] per rule H30.

 2011
20160039

First course treatment/Surgery of Primary Site: If a procedure stated to be an "excisional biopsy" doesn't grossly remove the tumor, should Surgery of Primary Site be coded as an excisional biopsy? See Discussion for example.

Would you code an excisional biopsy as Surgery for the following case?

The patient presented with a large protruding polypoid anal canal mass. The diagnosis of malignancy was made following a procedure referred to by the surgeon as an excisional biopsy. The protruding portion of the anal canal mass was excised, but the deep margin was grossly involved. The PE exam after the "excisional biopsy" found a firm mass, 4 cm in length on DRE. Further work-up with imaging showed gross residual disease extending to adjacent skeletal muscle (external anal sphincter). Although the internal/protruding anal canal portion of the tumor was excised, there was clearly extensive residual tumor. The patient underwent definitive concurrent chemoradiation only; subsequent surgery was not planned or performed.

Do not record this excisional biopsy as surgery because there was residual macroscopic tumor. See Note 1 under #4 on page 130 in the SEER manual,  http://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2015/SPCSM_2015_maindoc.pdf

2016
20130221 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Prostate: How many primaries are accessioned for a diagnosis of metastatic small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the prostate following a previous diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the prostate? See Discussion.

Would a second prostate primary with histology coded to 8041/3 [small cell carcinoma] be accessioned for the following examples? Or are these metastases despite the different histologies?

Example 1: Prostate adenocarcinoma diagnosed in 2001, no treatment given. Metastatic small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma diagnosed 03/2012 on liver biopsy with a physician's statement in 4/2012 that the prostate is likely the cause of the metastasis to the liver.

Example 2: Prostate adenocarcinoma diagnosed in 2006, treated with TURP. Bone marrow biopsy in 5/2012 shows involvement by metastatic small cell carcinoma with morphologic and immunophenotypic features that argue against prostatic adenocarcinoma. The oncologist assessment states, "The patient has Stage 4 small cell carcinoma of the prostate and the bone marrow biopsy path shows metastatic small cell carcinoma (likely prostate in origin)."

Accession two primaries, adenocarcinoma [8140/3] of the prostate [C619], followed by small cell (neuroendocrine) carcinoma [8041/3] of the prostate [C619] for each of the examples given per Rule M10.

In each case, the second histology (because it is not adenocarcinoma) is a new prostate primary. Small cell carcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma are not adenocarcinomas. As a result they are not covered by Rule M3.

2013
20130189

Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are the terms 'mass' and 'lesion' reportable terms for accessioning brain and CNS primaries? See Discussion.

With respect to reportability, the SEER Manual mentions 'tumor' and 'neoplasm,' but not 'mass' or 'lesion.' The SEER MP/H Manual states tumor, mass, lesion and neoplasm are equivalent terms for determining multiple primaries, but does this apply to reportability? If not, what is the distinction?

'Mass' and 'lesion' are not reportable terms for benign/borderline brain and CNS tumors.

Reportable terms for benign/borderline brain and CNS primaries are 'tumor' and 'neoplasm.' These terms appear in the ICD-O-3. 'Lesion' and 'mass' do not appear in the ICD-O-3. Do not use the MP/H Manual to determine reportability; page 2 of the SEER Manual is the correct source for reportability instructions.

 2013
20130197 MP/H Rules/Histology--Urinary System: What is the histology code for a 2007 and later diagnosis of papillary carcinoma of the urinary system organs? See Discussion.

Will histology code 8050 [papillary carcinoma, NOS] be used for cases diagnosed 2007 and later? The MP/H Rule H4 for urinary primaries states to code papillary carcinoma to code 8130, but Rule M6 includes tumors coded to 8050.

The IARC publication Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs uses code 8130 only for papillary carcinoma.

Code the histology to 8130 [papillary transitional cell carcinoma] for cases of papillary carcinoma of the urinary system diagnosed 2007 and later.

Histology code 8050 [papillary carcinoma, NOS] should not be used for papillary carcinoma of the urinary system diagnosed starting in 2007. Rule M6 includes this histology to take pre-2007 cases into consideration.

2013
20200088

Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is there an inconsistency between the histologies listed as deleted in the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines and the obsolete histologies in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms Database (Heme DB)? See Discussion.

While we recognize the Heme DB has been the correct source for histology coding for heme and lymphoid neoplasms dating back to 2010, the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines appear to provide incorrect coding instructions. Histologies 9670/3, 9728/3, 9729/3 and 9836/3 are listed in Table 3 - Deleted ICD-O codes in ICD-O-3.2.

While we recognize these histologies have been included in this Table because they have now been deleted, it is unclear whether the Comments regarding their use listed in the 4th column of the Table is correct. For each of these histologies, the comment states the histology listed in the 1st column (ICD-O-3/3.1) should be used prior to 2021. For example, for histology 9670/3, the comment states: Cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2021 use code 9670/3. Cases diagnosed 1/1/2021 forward use code 9823/3. However, each of these histology codes have been obsolete for cases diagnosed 1/1/2010 and later. If registrars were following the Heme DB and Heme Manual instructions (the appropriate coding source for these neoplasms), these histologies would not have been used in a decade.

Should the Comments column in Table 3 be updated? Or should a Note follow the Table indicating registrars should not use these histology codes for cases diagnosed after 1/1/2010, and these histology codes have been deleted for cases diagnosed 1/1/2021? It seems misleading to indicate any of these are valid histology codes for a 2010-2020 diagnosis when the Heme DB confirms these histology codes only apply to cases diagnosed prior to 2010.

Follow the Heme DB to determine which codes are obsolete as of 2010. These histologies were made obsolete based on the 2010 WHO Hematopoietic book and confirmation with physicians. The official changes from ICD-O-3 were not implemented until ICD-O-3.2 Also, edits will not allow these histologies to be used for cases diagnosed 2010 and later.

The ICD-O tables were based on documentation from IARC ICD-O committee and may differ from practices in North America.

 2020