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: 10/31/2024 08:17 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20140062

MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: Does lung MP/H Rule M6 apply to synchronous tumors only, metachronous tumors only, or both? See discussion.

How many primaries should be reported when a patient has a history of RLL adenocarcinoma diagnosed on 10/8/2009 followed by diagnoses of LUL adenocarcinoma on 10/5/2012 and a RUL adenocarcinoma on 3/26/2014?

We applied Rule M6 to the 10/5/2012 diagnosis of LUL adenocarcinoma and reported an additional primary. However, we are unsure how to apply the MP/H rules for the 3/26/2014 RUL adenocarcinoma.

Should we apply Rule M8 because the RUL adenocarcinoma was diagnosed more than 3 years after the original RLL adenocarcinoma and then apply M6 because the RUL and LUL indicate a single tumor in each lung (resulting in a third primary); or does Rule M12 apply because there has been more than a single tumor in each lung (no new primary)?

Assuming each of the three diagnoses is a single tumor and there are no other tumors in either lung, abstract two primaries: 1 in the RLL diagnosed on 10/8/2009 and 1 in the LUL diagnosed on 10/5/2012. Do not abstract the 3/26/2014 diagnosis as a new primary.

Rule M6 applies to the 2009 and 2012 diagnoses. Rule M12 applies to the 2012 and 2014 diagnoses. Do not compare the 2014 diagnosis to the 2009 diagnosis. Always compare the latest diagnosis to the most recent previous diagnosis in cases like this.

2014
20140022

MP/H Rules/Kidney, renal pelvis--How many primaries are there for this case? Should we stop at rule M8 making this all one primary (C689) even though there were right and left renal pelvis tumors? Rule M3, which contains laterality, does not apply because there is also a bladder tumor. See discussion.

Kidney: originally diagnosed 12/21/2011 with right renal pelvis high grade papillary urothelial cancer. Status post right nephrectomy. Then on 01/10/2013 diagnosed with low grade papillary urothelial cancer of the bladder. 01/21/2013 diagnosed with left renal pelvis urothelial carcinoma iIn situ. Path report stated this may represent a hgh grade papillary urothelial cancer – unable to confirm due to specimen size. On 01/24/2013 left periaortic lymph node biopsy revealed poorly differentiated carcinoma consistent with prior diagnosed right renal pelvis high grade urothelial cancer. Neither the bladder nor the left renal pelvis tumor was compared to the previous right renal pelvis tumor. Also has bone mets.

Abstract this case as a single primary.

First, apply the MP/H rules to compare the 2013 bladder tumor to the 2011 renal pelvis tumor. Rule M8 applies, this is a single primary. Next, apply the MP/H rules to compare the 2013 in situ renal pelvis tumor to the 2011 renal pelvis tumor. Rule M8 applies, this is a single primary. As you correctly pointed out, Rule M3 for bilateral renal pelvis tumors, does not apply because there is also a bladder tumor in this case.

2014
20150007

MP/H Rules/Histology: What is the proper histology code -- mucin producing adenocarcinoma or cholangiocarcinoma for the following case? See discussion.

4/10/13 Partial hepatectomy: well differentiated mucin producing adenoca involve right and left hepatic ducts, common hepatic duct & common bile duct. Invasion beyond wall of bile duct. CT Scan after 1st surgery shows residual neoplasm cannot be excluded

7/31/13 Left lateral segmentectomy: residual well differentiated cholangiiocarcinoma involving connective tissue surrounding major bile ducts. Per medical director, histolgically code to cholangiocarcinoma.

Primary site: Extra hepatic bile duct. Chemo (5FU, Leucovorin, Oxaliplatin) was started 5/1.

 

Code the histology as well differentiated mucin producing adenoca based on the 4/10/13 pathology report.

Code histology from the pathology report of the procedure which removed the most tumor tissue -- this is from the MP/H general instructions for coding histology. We are assuming that the partial hepatectomy removed the most tumor tissue in this case.

Per WHO, mucin producing adenoca is a variant of cholangiocarcioma.

2015
20170035

MP/H Rules/Histology: What is the histology code of serous tubal intraepithelial (in situ) carcinoma (STIC), bilateral fallopian tubes?

Assign 8441/2. This is based on the WHO classification for female reproductive system tumors.

 2017
20160025

MP/H Rules/Histology: What is the correct histology code for a NUT midline carcinoma?

Code histology to 8010/3.

NUT carcinoma is identified by the NUTM1 gene rearrangement.  

NUT midline carcinomas (NMC) are lethal and morphologically indistinguishable from other poorly diff carcinomas. They are epithelial tumors which can range from undifferentiated carcinomas to carcinomas with prominent squamous differentiation.

A new proposed ICD-O-3 code has been suggested for NUT tumors but it is not yet approved for implementation. Do not use the new code until it is approved for use in the United States.

                           

2016
20160053

MP/H Rules/Histology: How is the histology coded for an invasive adenocarcinoma arising in a papilloma with high-grade dysplasia? See Discussion.

Patient has a perihilar bile duct primary with a microscopic focus of invasive moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma arising in a large papilloma. The MP/H Rules do not address adenocarcinomas arising in a papilloma, only adenocarcinomas arising in an adenoma (or polyp). Should the histology be coded as 8140 for the invasive adenocarcinoma component? Or should the matrix principle be applied and the histology coded as a malignant glandular papilloma (8260/3)?

Assign 8503/3 for invasive adenocarcinoma arising in a papilloma with high-grade dysplasia, perihilar bile duct primary. Neither ICD-O-3 nor the WHO classification have a code for this specific histology; however, our expert pathologist consultant states 8503/3 is the best available choice based on pages 264 and 273 in the WHO Digestive system classification.

2016
20140077

MP/H Rules/Histology/Multiple primaries--GE junction: How is histology coded for a goblet cell carcinoma in the GE junction? See discussion.

The patient was diagnosed with GE junction signet ring adenocarcinoma (8490/3) in 5/2012, treated with radiation. GE junction biopsy on 9/20/2012 showed residual signet ring carcinoma. Subsequent biopsies on 7/8/2013 showed GE junction biopsy of invasive adenocarcinoma, signet ring cell type along with “Esophagus, distal and GE junction biopsies” (site not further clarified in available documentation) with Goblet cell carcinoma. The histology code for the goblet cell carcinoma is needed to determine the number of primaries.

According to our expert pathologist consultant, goblet cell is a descriptive term and not a specific histology in this context. There is no ICD-O-3 code for it. The "goblet cell carcinoma" in this case is not a new primary.

Goblet cell is used to describe some cells containing mucin. In addition to individual tumor cells containing mucin which compresses the nucleus to give the appearance of signet rings, the mucin is present in columnar cells with the nuclei at one end -- this latter is a pattern often seen when glandular structures are formed by the tumor cells. It is also often intermixed with the signet ring cells in the surrounding stroma.

2014
20170060

MP/H Rules/Histology/Grade--Unknown & ill-defined sites: What is the correct histology and grade of a liver biopsy with metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma low to intermediate grade if primary site is unknown? See Discussion.

CT-guided liver biopsy, diagnosis: Metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma. Diagnosis Comment: Cytology of the tumor appears to be low to intermediate grade.

Would this case be coded as an atypical carcinoid tumor (8249/3) based on SINQ 20170033 and the statement of intermediate grade; or should this be 8240/3 (neuroendocrine tumor) per SINQ 20160023 because it is a metastatic site? More clarification is needed on when to code 8249/3 or 8240/3 for a neuroendocrine carcinoma or neoplasm seen in a metastatic specimen only when there is specified grade.

Assign histology code 8246/3 and assign code 9 for grade.

Since the primary is unknown and the type of NEC is not definitively stated, code neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS based on the diagnosis.

Code grade from primary tumor only. Assign grade code 9 when the primary site is unknown. See instruction 2.b. in the Grade Coding Instructions for 2014+.

SINQ 20170033 and SINQ 20160023 provide instructions for coding the grade/differentiation field. Using these SINQ questions to code histology could lead to errors.

 2017
20140029

MP/H Rules/Histology-Urinary: 1) What is the correct ICD-O-3 morphology code for conventional renal cell carcinoma? Is this clear cell carcinoma or does conventional refer to the general diagnosis?

2) If a patient was diagnosed with invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma of the bladder in May 2011 and returns in February 2013 with invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, what is the correct ICD-O-3 morphology code?

1) Clear cell renal carcinoma, code 8310, is often called conventional renal cell carcinoma. It is specific compared to renal cell carcinoma, NOS, code 8312, a general morphology term for the majority of kidney cancers. See  kidney rules H5 and H12 and Table 1 on page 57 of the Kidney Terms and Definitions, http://www.seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/mphrules_definitions.pdf

2) Do not change the ICD-O-3 code assigned for the 2011 diagnosis. As you know, the 2013 diagnosis is not a new primary per rule M6.

2014
20170007

MP/H Rules/Histology--Urinary System: How should histology be coded when there are multiple bladder, ureter and renal pelvis urothelial tumors including non-invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma in the left ureter, invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma invading the lamina propria in the bladder, and an invasive sarcomatoid urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis that invades the muscularis? See Discussion.

Per Rule M8, this is a single primary as there are multiple urothelial tumors as outlined in Table 1 (papillary urothelial carcinoma [8130] and sarcomatoid urothelial carcinoma [8122]) simultaneously present in multiple urinary organs (bladder, ureter and renal pelvis). As Rule M8 indicates these are a single primary, despite the histologies differing at the third digit (8130 vs 8122), then Rule H14 (Code the histology of the most invasive tumor) seems to be the most applicable histology rule. Following Rule H14 (in the Text version of the MP/H Rules), the histology would be coded as 8122 (sarcomatoid urothelial carcinoma) since the renal pelvis tumor was the most invasive tumor present.

However, in both the Matrix and Flowchart versions of the MP/H Rules, Rule H14 contains a note (missing from the Text version) that states that this rule should only be used when the first three numbers of the histology codes are identical (This is a single primary). Rule M8 clearly tells us these are a single primary, despite the differences at the third digit of the histology. Further defaulting to Rule H15 (Code the numerically higher histology code) in this case would ignore the histology of the tumor with the worse prognosis (the most invasive tumor). Was this note included in the Matrix and Flowchart versions in error?

Code the histology as 8122 according to the MP/H rules for Renal Pelvis, Ureter, Bladder, and Other Urinary, M8 and H14. Rule M8 states urothelial tumors in two or more of urinary sites including bladder and renal pelvis are a single primary. Rule H14 states code the histology of the most invasive tumors for multiple tumors abstracted as a single primary.

 2017