Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20110028 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: How many primaries and what histology(ies) are coded when the pathology report shows a, 1.9 cm Hurthle cell carcinoma, probable follicular variant of papillary carcinoma, with Hurthle cell features and a 2 mm focus of follicular variant, papillary carcinoma? See Discussion. | Right lobectomy pathology report final diagnosis states: 1.9 cm Hurthle cell carcinoma (see comment). Comment: histologic diagnosis Hurthle cell carcinoma, probable follicular variant of papillary carcinoma with Hurthle cell features. Subsequent left lobectomy one week later showed a 2 mm microscopic focus of follicular variant of papillary carcinoma, encapsulated.
None of the rules seems to fit this scenario. The number of primaries reported for this case depends on the histology coded for each tumor. Does Rule M6 (Follicular and papillary tumors in the thyroid within 60 days of diagnosis are a single primary.) or M17 (Tumors with ICD-O-3 histology codes that are at the first (xxx), second (xxx) or third (xxx) number are multiple primaries.) apply? Does the case represent a single primary because both are papillary/follicular tumors or two primaries because one is Hurthle cell carcinoma, and one is papillary/follicular carcinoma (different histology at second digit)?
To code the histology for the larger tumor in the right lobe, which rule do we apply? Rule H11 (single histology of Hurthle cell carcinoma [8290] per path final diagnosis), H15 (tumor has both follicular and papillary carcinoma [8340], per path comment), or H17 (numerically higher code for 8340 because there is both Hurthle cell and papillary/follicular carcinoma)? |
Use the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual for cases diagnosed 2007 or later to determine the number of primaries. This is a single primary.
The Hurthle cell carcinoma is a synonym for follicular carcinoma according to the WHO. See page 67 of the 2004 WHO Classification of Tumours of Endocrine Organs. The steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a thyroid primary, use the Other Sites MP rules under one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) to determine the number of primaries because the thyroid does not have site specific rules.
Start with the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module from Rule M3 to Rule M18. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.
. Follicular and papillary tumors in the thyroid within 60 days of diagnosis are a single primary. The patient has a tumor in each lobe of the thyroid with the same histology. Abstract a single primary for this patient.
Determine the histology code. For a thyroid, use one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Other Sites Histo rules to determine histology because thyroid primaries do not have site specific rules.
Start with the SINGLE TUMOR: INVASIVE ONLY module, Rule H8. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module from Rule H8 to Rule H18. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.
. Code follicular and papillary carcinoma of the thyroid to papillary carcinoma, follicular variant (8340). Use the comment to code the histology for the right lobectomy. "Probable" is an acceptable ambiguous term to use for coding histology. (See the Ambiguous Terms Used to Code Histology section of the General Instructions in the MP/H manual.) |
2011 |
|
|
20071042 | MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted when two tumors occur in one breast and both are ductal with the smaller tumor representing tubular carcinoma [variant]? See Discussion. | Right breast partial excision: Two invasive foci, one measuring 0.2cm and the second measuring 0.5cm. Both lesions are ductal carcinoma with the smaller representing tubular carcinoma (variant). The breast histology table does not list tubular as a type of ductal, however, the pathologist states ductal carcinoma, tubular variant. |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is two primaries of the right breast, using the 2007 MP/H rules. For the purposes of the 2007 rules, tubular is not a specific type of duct. Duct carcinoma (8500) and tubular carcinoma (8211) are different at the second digit of the histology code. Rule M12 applies, making these separate primaries. | 2007 |
|
|
20071011 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted when each of multiple breast "re-excisions" performed more than two months apart in 2006 demonstrate intraductal carcinoma and there is no mention of "recurrence"? See Discussion. | Right Breast 06/27/2002 exc bx, DCIS. Margins involved. 09/24/2002 re-exc, several foci of intraductal ca. Margins involved. 10/15/2002 re-exc, microfocus of DCIS Radiation treatment started 11/18/2002. Is this 1, possibly 2, or maybe 3 breast primaries because of the 2 month rule and no statement of "recurrence"? Based on SINQ #20000478, this would be at least 2, but possible 3 primaries. Based on SINQ #20021143, this would be 1 primary if the case were diagnosed from 1998-2003. The excisions appear to represent wider excisions of the same tumor. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 2013:
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007, this is one primary, assuming these are wider excisions of the same tumor.
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules. |
2007 |
|
|
20190088 | Surgery of Primary Site/Surgical Procedure of Other Site--Breast: When bilateral nipple/skin sparing mastectomies are performed for a single primary confined to one breast, we should code 30 for surgery and 0 for Surgery of Other Site or follow the CAnswer Forum and code 1 in Surgery of Other Site? See Discussion. |
Registrars are confused because the STORE manual dropped "involved" from the description of contralateral breast removal in the Appendix B surgical codes. In April, 2019, CAnswer Forum instructed registrars to code both the surgery with uninvolved breast to the proper code, plus code Surgery of Other Site to 1. In October, they stepped back and instructed registrars not to code Surgery of Other Site to 1 if a code for uninvolved breast removal is included in the breast surgery code. However, they insist that if the surgery code is 30, subcutaneous mastectomy, and the uninvolved contralateral breast is also removed, then continue to code Surgery of Other Site to 1. This contradicts the specific instructions for Surgery of Other Sites. |
For single primaries only, code removal of involved contralateral breast under the data item Surgical Procedure/Other Site (NAACCR Item # 1294), this is, code 1, according to the 2018 SEER Manual: Assign code 1 When the involved contralateral breast is removed for a single primary breast cancer This would also apply when Surgery of the Primary Site code is 30 (subcutaneous mastectomy) for breast. If uninvolved, assign code 0 to Surgical Procedure of Other Site SEER registries should follow the instructions according to the SEER Manual. |
2019 |
|
|
20190022 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: Is histology code or the number of primaries assigned differently in SINQ 20180093 if the word "pattern' was omitted? See Discussion. |
Regarding the answer to SINQ 20180093: This is a single primary; coded 8140/3 adenocarcinoma. In the biopsy and the two tumors found on lobectomy, the specific adenocarcinoma histologies are described as acinar predominant pattern, solid growth pattern and lepidic predominant pattern. You do not code a pattern, so rule M7 above applies and this is a single primary. My question is based on Note 2 in Coding Multiple Histologies for lung cancers that says: Predominantly describes the greater amount of tumor. Predominant and majority are synonyms. Per the CAP protocol, the term predominant is acceptable for the following specific subtypes of adenocarcinoma. For these subtypes only, the word predominant is used to describe both the subtype and the grade of the tumor. |
If the word "pattern' was omitted, you would abstract multiple primaries per the Lung Solid Tumor Rule M6 and code histology to adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant (8551/3) and adenocarcinoma, lepidic predominant (8250/3) per Rule H4 as the word "pattern' is not included in each histology. |
2019 |
|
|
20110023 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are reported in a patient with a November 2009 diagnosis of refractory anemia and a 10/25/2010 biopsy diagnosis of refractory anemia with excess blasts type 2 with ringed sideroblasts that the clinician indicates actually demonstrates progression to AML? See Discussion. | Refractory anemia, NOS diagnosed in November 2009. The diagnosis on a bone marrow biopsy performed on 10/25/10 is myelodysplastic syndrome - refractory anemia with excess blasts type 2 with ringed sideroblasts. Per the medical oncologist, in the 12/16/10 clinic note it states, "Pt underwent bone marrow biopsy on 10/25/10 and ultimately this marrow demonstrates progression to AML.
When applying the Hematopoietic Rules, the refractory anemia, NOS and the myelodysplastic syndrome - refractory anemia with excess blasts type 2 with ringed sideroblasts is the same primary. However, the refractory anemia NOS and the AML are multiple primaries. |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
First, note that myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) is a term that includes a number of diseases. Refractory anemia, NOS and refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts are types of MDS. These two diseases are an NOS and a more specific disease, which is accessioned as one primary per Rule M7.
Next, assess the change from refractory anemia to AML. In checking the Heme DB, AML is listed under transformations for refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts. This patient has a chronic disease (refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts) and an acute disease (AML). Per Rule M10, abstract as multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed in a chronic (less aggressive) phase AND second diagnosis of a blast or acute phase more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx. |
2011 |
|
|
20081126 | MP/H Rules--Brain and CNS: Are stigmata of neurofibromatosis in the brain reportable neurofibromatosis lesions? See Discussion. |
Reference: SINQ 20051108; SINQ 20061018 Three year old patient with history of neurofibromatosis 1. 3/05 MRI of the brain showed right optic nerve glioma. It also showed heterogeneous high t2 signal in the middle cerebellar peduncles and near the genu of the internal capsules bilaterally are stigmata of neurofibromatosis type I. 3/08 MRI showed new mass suspicious for glioma in the hypothalamus. Clinical diagnosis is benign glioma secondary to diagnosis of neurofibromatosis. How many primaries are to be accessioned for this patient? Should the matrix principle be invoked for the second glioma? Should the behavior code for the glioma be 0? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 through 2017 Accession NF (9540/1) when there is CNS tumor -- a glioma or some other intracranial/intraspinal tumor. Stigmata of NF are reportable when the stigmata themselves are reportable tumors. For example, glioma, or another intracranial/intraspinal tumor. Do not report sitgmata that are only termed "stigmata seen on MRI," for example, without other reportable terminology. Do NOT accession NF (9540/1) when there is only peripheral nerve/nervous system involvement. Accession the neurofibromatosis itself only once per patient. Accession any initial neoplasm in the CNS separately. Abstract and code any subsequent CNS neoplasms according to the multiple primary brain rules. Accession three primaries for the case described above.
--> Optic nerve gliomas associated with NF are pilocytic astrocytomas. Code pilocytic astrocytoma as 9421/3 in North America. For cases diagnosed 2018 or later See the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules for Non-Malignant CNS tumors. |
2008 |
|
|
20081100 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Rectum: When not specifically mentioned as part of the histology, is the adenoma a second histologic type, or just a further physical description of the tumor? See Discussion. |
Rectal tumor resection (APR) path report final dx: "mucinous carcinoma, see comment". The comment is the CAP-format tumor summary, which states "histologic type: adenocarcinoma with extensive mucin production (mucinous or colloid carcinoma). Additional pathologic findings: adenomas - tumor arises in a tubulovillous adenoma". If you follow the rules and only use the final dx, you would code a different histology than if you use the 'additional path findings.' |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later Other Sites histology rule H12 applies in this case. Assign histology code 8263 [adenocarcinoma in tubulovillous adenoma]. Use information from the CAP protocol and from comments associated with the final diagnosis to code histology. The fact that the malignancy arose in a polyp can be taken from anywhere in the medical record; not limited to the final diagnosis. Based on the information provided for this case, the histology is adenocarcinoma with extensive mucin production (mucinous or colloid carcinoma) arising in a tubulovillous adenoma. |
2008 |
|
|
20041083 | CS Lymph Nodes/CS Reg Nodes Eval -- Rectum: If the rectal tumor is not treated with a resection but on endoscopic ultrasound the patient is stated to have a lymph node above the primary tumor and the physician stages the case clinically as N1, should the CS Lymph Nodes field be coded to 30 [Regional lymph node(s), NOS] or 10[Rectal, NOS]? Should the evaluation field be coded to 0 [No lymph nodes removed. Evidence based on other non-invasive clinical evidence] or 1 [No lymph nodes removed. Evidence based on endoscopic examination.]? See Discussion. | Rectal primary: 5/04 sigmoidoscopy w/bx of rectal mass: adenocarcinoma. 6/04 Endoscopic ultrasound of rectal mass: invasion through wall but no definite invasion of prostate or seminal vesicles; 7.5mm lymph node located above tumor, no other enlarged lymph nodes detected. Patient did not have surgery. Physician staged lymph node involvement to clinical N1. |
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.Assign CS Lymph Nodes code 10 [Regional lymph nodes] based on the physician's N1. Assign code 10 because it is the lowest numerical CS code that corresponds to N1 in the scheme for rectum. Use the physician's assignment of TNM when the information in the medical record is incomplete or ambiguous. Code CS Reg Nodes Eval field 0 [No lymph nodes removed] for the case described above because there is no indication that N1 was assigned based on the endoscopic exam. The NI may be based solely on TNM documentation provided by the clinician and you do not know what the clinician used as the basis for the staging. |
2004 |
|
|
20160001 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries/Histology--Rectum: How many primaries does this person have and what is the correct histology? See discussion. |
Rectal polyp excised in June, 2012, found to have adenocarcinoma in situ in a tubulovillous adenoma. Additional colorectal biopsies in November; all were negative. Another rectal polyp removed in December 2012 showing a tubulovillous adenoma with focal carcinoma in situ. Then, in February, 2013 another rectal polyp removed. This was diagnosed as mod. diff. adenocarcinoma with mucinous features, infiltrating into submucosa, seen in a background of tubulovillous adenoma. Surgical margins free (mucin %=40%). Finally, in May, 2013, a low anterior resection with no residual adenocarcinoma.
This appears to be adenocarcinoma in multiple adenomatous polyps (8221/3), although the final path from May 2013 described one benign polyp and said, 'no other masses, suspicious lesions or polyps are identified.' Going through the MP/H rules, both M13 and M14 result in this being a single primary, and come before the rule about an invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later is a new primary. The original abstract was coded C209 and 8263/2. If this is a single primary, should it be changed to 8221 with a behavior code of 3? Is this scenario another example of when to change the original diagnosis based on subsequent information? |
Abstract a single primary and code as 8263/3. Other Sites rule M14 applies. The histology code is 8263/3 based on rules H28 and H12. Apply H28 first, make a second pass through the H rules and apply H12. See slide 18 in the "Beyond the Basics" presentation for applicable instructions on a similar situation, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/training_adv/SEER_MPH_Gen_Instruc_06152007.pdf
This case is an example of the need to update the original abstract based on more complete, subsequent, information. |
2016 |
An official website of the United States government
