Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20140083 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Thyroid: How many primaries should be reported when a complete thyroidectomy specimen shows two tumors: 1.8 cm papillary carcinoma with tall cell features (8344/3) and a 0.4 cm papillary thyroid carcinoma (8260/3)? See discussion. |
Is papillary thyroid carcinoma an NOS histology qualifying for rule M16, thus leading to a single primary, or would M17 apply (multiple primaries) because the histology codes are different at the second digit (8260 and 8344)? While rule M16 doesn't include papillary thyroid carcinoma in the listed histologies, it seems like it may be an NOS histology for the thyroid. In addition, code 8260/3 is listed as NOS in the ICD-O-3. |
Apply rule M16 and abstract a single primary. These two thyroid tumors, one papillary carcinoma with tall cell features (8344/3) and one papillary thyroid carcinoma, fit the criteria for rule M16, although not explicity listed there. We will clarify this in the next version of the rules. |
2014 |
|
|
20160003 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Thyroid: How many primaries should be reported for a diagnosis of Hurthle cell carcinoma (2.7 cm) and papillary carcinoma (0.3 cm) in the thyroid? See discussion. |
SINQ 20110028 includes a note that states "Hurthle cell carcinoma is a synonym for follicular carcinoma according to the WHO." That case is a little different in that the Hurthle cell carcinoma was stated to be a probable follicular variant of papillary carcinoma. The case above does not include that statement.
Is Hurthle cell carcinoma a type of follicular carcinoma? Does rule M6 (follicular and papillary tumors in the thyroid w/in 60 days) apply, report a single primary? Or does rule M17 (tumors with ICD-O-3 histology codes different at the third digit) apply thus leading to multiple primaries (8290 for Hurthle cell and 8260 for papillary thyroid carcinoma)? |
Apply rule M6 and report a single primary.
Hurthle cell carcinoma is a snynonym for follicular carcinoma of the thyroid. |
2016 |
|
|
20110046 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Stomach: If there is no statement of recurrence, how many primaries are to be abstracted when a patient is diagnosed with multiple gastric carcinoid tumors between 12/2003 and 3/2009? See Discussion. |
Are the multiple primary rules applicable when a patient has multiple gastric carcinoid tumors? The patient was diagnosed with carcinoid tumors starting in 12/2003 through 3/2009. According to the 2004 SEER Manual, rule 5, if a tumor with the same histology is identified in the same site at least two months after the original diagnosis, this is a separate primary. The physician does not indicate that the pre-2007 carcinoid tumors were recurrent. The patient does not have familial polyposis syndrome. Should each of the following tumors be a separate primary? 12/2003 - Gastric Polyp Removal - Path: Gastric carcinoid tumor 05/2004 - Stomach body polyp removal - Path: Carcinoid Tumor (endocrine cell tumor) 09/2004 - Single polyp in body removal - Path: Gastric carcinoid 03/2005 - Multiple gastric body polyps removed - Path: Carcinoid tumor 07/2005 - 3 small polyps in fundus removal - Path: Carcinoid tumor 02/2007 - Localized nodularity in lesser curvature - Path: Carcinoid (neuroendocrine) tumor 03/2009 - Stomach body polypectomy - Path: Carcinoid tumor |
Code as a single primary. The histology is carcinoid. Our expert pathology consultant replied as follows: "This patient clearly has a condition driving the proliferation of neuroendocrine cells. Possibilities include hypergastrinemia from a gastrinoma or from response of antral gastrin cells due to achlorhydria from long standing chronic atrophic gastritis, or multiple endocrine neoplasia (MEN1) syndrome (genetically driven). How should these cases be coded given we do not have a way to code the inciting situation. (I suspect the gastroenterologist knows what it is, but we haven't obtained that information.) We do not have an ICD-O-3 code for the underlying condition, MEN1 or hypergastrinemia. Therefore, the only choice is to code the resulting tumor, carcinoid [8240/3]." |
2011 |
|
|
20140036 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Prostate: Is duct carcinoma of the prostate the same as an adeno/acinar carcinoma of the prostate? Specifically, does rule M3 apply when there is an adenocarcinoma of the prostate followed by a duct carcinoma of the prostate or a duct carcinoma followed by adenocarcinoma? |
Rule M3 does not apply to adenocarcinoma followed by duct carcinoma of the prostate or vice versa. Rule M3 pertains to cases of adenocarcinoma and acinar carcinoma. These two terms, adenocarcinoma and acinar carcinoma, are equivalent for the purpose of applying the MP/H rules to prostate cases. See page 77 of the Other Sites Terms and Definitions, http://www.seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/mphrules_definitions.pdf
|
2014 | |
|
|
20170031 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Penis: How many primaries should be reported for a diagnosis of invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the penis in 6/2011, treated with excision and fulguration followed by 10/2014 penile lesion found to be SCC with basaloid features focally highly suspicious for invasion? Clinically, the 2014 tumor is stated to be in situ and recurrent penile cancer and follow-up in 2/2015 indicates there was no evidence of tumor following treatment. Subsequently, in 3/2016 the patient has another penile lesion biopsy showing SCC in situ suspicious for invasion, clinically stated to be recurrent. See Discussion. |
At the central registry, we have accessioned this scenario as three primaries per Multiple Primaries/Histology (MP/H) Rule M10 (diagnosed more than 1 year apart), as the patient was stated to be disease free between each occurrence. However, the diagnosing/treating facility is not reporting these cases due to clinical statements of recurrent disease. This is an example of a case type identified on casefinding audits conducted by our central registry in which we have learned SEER's expectation of MP/H rule application does not match hospital reporting. Can the 2018 version of the MP/H rules more clearly address how this type of clinically recurrent (multiple times) case should be handled? |
Accession three tumors as the tumors were each diagnosed more than one year apart according to the MP/H Rule M10 for Other Sites. And, as you have noted, the patient was free of disease after each diagnosis. The MP/H rules have very clear instructions regarding the word "recurrence." See page 10, specifically A.7., https://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/2007_mphrules_manual_08242012.pdf SEER will evaluate the MP/H rules in the upcoming revision. |
2017 |
|
|
20100010 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Ovary: How many primaries are to be abstracted when a patient is diagnosed with serous cystadenocarcinoma [8441] of the right ovary and clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310] of the left ovary? See Discussion. |
Patient had bilateral ovarian tumors. The right ovary had serous cystadenocarcinoma and left ovary had clear cell adenocarcinoma. The pathology COMMENT section stated, "Based on the histologic differences of the tumors within each ovary, feel these represent two distinct separate primaries. Lymph node metastases are clearly serous ca." The physician staged the right ovary as T2a N1 M0 and left ovary as T1c N0 M0. Do we accession one primary per rule M7 [Bilateral epithelial tumors (8000-8799) of the ovary within 60 days are a single primary]? What is intention of Rule M7? If the histology in each ovary is different but within the range (8000-8799), is that supposed to be accessioned as one primary? Or is the intention of Rule M7 that tumors in both ovaries must have the SAME histology within that histology range to be a single primary? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, apply rule M8 and abstract this case as multiple primaries. Rule M7 does not apply when each ovary has a distinctly different histology, even when both histologies are with the specified code range. This clarification will be added to the next version of the rules. |
2010 |
|
|
20170027 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Melanoma: Is a melanoma with an unknown laterality a different laterality for the purposes of applying Multiple Primaries/Histology Rule M4? See Discussion. |
8/1/2016 Left Abdomen biopsy: Early melanoma in situ (C445-2, 8720/2). 9/2/2016 Upper back: Superficially invasive malignant melanoma (C445-9, 8720/3). Does rule M4 apply and multiple primaries should be reported or does rule M8 apply and a single primary should be reported? |
Abstract multiple primaries following Multiple Primary Rule M4. Unknown laterality is a different laterality for the purposes of applying the MP/H rules for melanoma. NOTE: This answer applies to cases diagnosed prior to 2018. As of 1/1/2018, early melanoma is not reportable. |
2017 |
|
|
20160054 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Melanoma: How many melanoma primaries should be abstracted if, during the workup for a metastatic melanoma of an unknown cutaneous site, an in situ melanoma is also discovered? See Discussion. |
Patient has diagnosis of melanoma with spindle cell features found in a right lower lobectomy specimen. Chart notes indicate this is metastatic from a cutaneous primary of unknown site. Further work up includes a biopsy of the tip of the nose, which is diagnostic for in situ melanoma. Should this be abstracted as two separate primaries, one for an invasive melanoma of unknown primary site and the other for an in situ melanoma of the skin on the tip of the nose? Which MP/H Rule would apply? |
Yes, abstract this as two separate primaries, an invasive melanoma of unknown primary site and an in situ melanoma of the skin on the tip of the nose. Rule M3 applies. |
2016 |
|
|
20081015 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: Should a subsequent primary be abstracted using rule M8 for a patient diagnosed in January 2000 with adenocarcinoma of the right upper lung if the patient initially sought alternative therapies and presented in September 2007 for a right upper lobe lung mass with extension into the mediastinum, mediastinal lymph node mets and a pericardial effusion? See Discussion. |
After more than seven years, the patient in this case decided to proceed with the originally suggested standard therapy. Is this a multiple primary case because the tumors are "diagnosed" more than 3 years apart? Or should we assume this is further progression of the 2000 case because it was originally only treated with alternative therapies? The clinician in this case indicates the patient is being referred for treatment to the right upper lung originally diagnosed in 2000. |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Do not abstract a 2007 primary for this case. From the information provided, there is disease progression/extension and lymph node metastasis in 2007; but there are no new lung tumors in 2007. Therefore, the 2007 MP/H rules do not apply. |
2008 |
|
|
20081101 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: If a 1.7 cm LUL lung tumor is not treated surgically, would a 2.1 cm tumor in the same lobe three years later be a new primary? See Discussion. |
In 2004 the patient has a 1.7cm squamous cell carcinoma diagnosed in the LUL of the lung treated with radiation and chemotherapy. In 2007, the patient was diagnosed with a 2.1cm squamous cell carcinoma in the LUL treated with radiation. According to the lung MP/H rules, the 2007 tumor would be a new primary. Given that there was no surgery, would the second tumor be progression of disease or would it be a new primary? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: If the tumor diagnosed in 2004 was successfully treated and disappeared, apply the MP/H rules for lung. According to rule M8, the 2004 tumor and the 2007 tumor are multiple primaries. If there was no disease-free interval between tumor occurrences, that is, if the 2007 tumor is still the same tumor that was diagnosed in 2004, the MP/H rules do not apply. |
2008 |
An official website of the United States government
