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 22:56 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20081090 MP/H Rules: Does the presence of metastases affect the application of the MP/H rules? See Discussion. Single lung tumors presenting in each lung but the patient also presents with bone mets? Would rule M6 apply? Or do the bone mets represent additional tumors?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the MP/H rules do not apply to metastases. Ignore metastases when applying the rules.

For the case above, use rule M6 and abstract as two primaries (right lung and left lung). The bone mets are ignored.

 2008
20100067 MP/H Rules/Reportability--Ovary: Should an ovarian tumor with the histology of mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma be accessioned based on the presence of a foci of intraepithelial carcinoma? See Discussion.

The final diagnosis on the pathology report, "Omentum: mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma. Peritoneal fluid for cytology: neoplastic cells present; low grade serous neoplasm. Lymph nodes, right pelvic: one lymph node harboring implants of serous borderline tumor and endosalpingiosis within the subcapsular sinus. Bilateral fallopian tubes and ovaries: mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma involving ovarian surface and serosal surface of the tube. Detached fragment of borderline tumor within the tubal lumen. Uterus, cervix, and segment of colon: mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma involving parametrial and paracervical tissue, cul de sac, uterine and colonic serosa. Nine pericolonic lymph nodes negative for tumor. Stage III.

I&R # 45622 asked if a mucinous borderline tumor with intraepithelial carcinoma and focal microinvasion is reportable. The answer given on that site was that the case is not reportable. According to MPH, FORDS, and Collaborative Stage, intraepithelial carcinoma is in situ, behavior code 2, and is reportable. Has this changed?

This case is reportable because there is a diagnosis of carcinoma (intraepithelial carcinoma). 2010
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
20071079 MP/H Rules/Recurrence--Breast: Do we use a pathologists comment of "recurrent ductal carcinoma" found in the pathology report for a new specimen to determine whether the new specimen actually represents a new primary or recurrent disease? See Discussion.

The patient had a left breast cancer LIQ, ductal with DCIS. Nodes (-) diagnosed in 1998

Treatment: Lumpectomy-clear margins

Refused radiation

Hormone therapy: Tamoxifen

Present: June 2007

Left breast-invasive ductal ca, UOQ

Pathology report comments: Recurrent ductal ca.

Left axillary nodes (+)

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, apply the 2007 MP/H breast rules. Go to the multiple tumors module and begin with rule M4. Stop at rule M5: tumors diagnosed more than 5 years apart are multiple primaries.

The only time you can accept a pathologist's statement of recurrence is when the statement is made based on a review of the slides from the previous diagnosis compared to the slides from the current diagnosis.

 2007
20120065 MP/H Rules/Primary site: What is the primary site and histology for a focus of papillary thyroid cancinoma, follicular variant, arising in thyroid tissue of mature cystic teratoma of the ovary?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the primary site to ovary [C56.9] and the histology to papillary carcinoma, follicular variant [8340/3].

The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Refer to the 2012 SEER Manual for help to determine the primary site. This neoplasm is arising in a teratoma of the ovary. Per the 2012 SEER Manual, in this case the site is coded to ovary [56.9] because that is where the tumor originated. Although the teratoma contains thyroid tissue, it arose in the ovary. Teratomas are unusual in that they contain all three germ cell layers from which an embryo forms. It is not unusual to have malignancies that are usually primary to the thyroid, liver, brain, lung, etc., originate in a teratoma.

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). Go to the Other Sites Histology rules because site specific rules have not been developed for this primary.

Start with the SINGLE TUMOR: INVASIVE ONLY module, rule H8. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. Code the histology as papillary carcinoma, follicular variant [8340/3].

2012
20120048 MP/H Rules/Primary site: Can you clarify how you interpreted the term "synchronous" to appropriately code the primary site to C68.9 [urinary tract] for SINQ 20110119 and did not use that code for SINQ 20100025 when both cases used MP/H Rule M8 to determine the number of primaries? See Discussion.

In SINQ 20100025 a patient was diagnosed with multiple urinary system tumors over a year apart. Rule M8 applies (single primary) and the primary site was left coded to the original primary site, C65.9 [renal pelvis]. In SINQ 20110119 a patient is diagnosed with multiple urinary system tumors within a month of each other, again rule M8 applies (single primary) and the primary site was coded to C68.9 [urinary system, NOS].

In both cases, rule M8 applies. However, the tumors were not diagnosed synchronously (e.g., one month apart in one case and greater than one year apart in the other). When the SINQ answer states, "same time" or "synchronous" does this mean during the same event? If not, what is the time range for "same time" or "synchronous"?

Please clarify when it is appropriate to code the primary site to C68.9 [urinary system, NOS] for Rule M8 and when it is not.

For the purpose of applying the MP/H rules, the term "synchronous" means that the two diagnoses occurred at the same time or less than or equal to 60 days apart.

The case in SINQ 20100025 was not synchronous. The first lesion in the renal pelvis [C65.9] occurred in 1/08 and the subsequent tumors were diagnosed in 5/09, more than one year apart. In this case, you do not go back to change the primary site code on the original abstract.

The case in SINQ 20110119 was diagnosed synchronously, the first lesion in the bladder [C67.9] was diagnosed in 11/09 and the second lesion in the renal pelvis [C65.9] was diagnosed in 12/09, less than 60 days apart. Because the lesions were synchronous, the primary site is coded urinary system, NOS [C68.9].

2012
20130090 MP/H Rules/Primary site/Histology--Colon/Rectum: How are the primary site and histology to be coded for a diagnosis of familial polyposis with malignant tumors in the sigmoid and rectum? See Discussion.

Preoperative diagnosis was familial polyposis with rectal and rectosigmoid cancer.

The pathology report from the colon resection showed:

  1. 5 mm tumor in the sigmoid. Histologic type: adenocarcinoma.

  • 1.9 cm tumor in the distal rectum. Histologic type: adenocarcinoma with signet ring cell differentiation.

  • 4 cm tumor in the proximal rectum. Histologic type: adenocarcinoma.

    • Gross description: The mucosa of the colon is tan pink with polyposis throughout; more than 1000 tan sessile polyps.

    Should this be a single primary per MP/H Rule M3, histology coded to 8220/3 [familial polyposis] per MP/H Rule H17, and primary site coded to C199?

    This case should be accessioned as a single primary. Code the primary site to the colon and rectum [C199] and the histology to adenocarcinoma in familial polyposis coli [8220/3] per MP/H Rule H17.

    For cases of familial polyposis, when the rectosigmoid or rectum are involved, assign code C199 [colon and rectum]. When the rectosigmoid or rectum are not involved, assign code C189 [colon, NOS].

    		2013
    		20110119 MP/H Rules/Primary Site--Bladder: How is the primary site coded when a patient is diagnosed with synchronous, non-invasive papillary urothelial carcinomas of the bladder and renal pelvis? See Discussion.

    This patient was diagnosed with at least three non-invasive papillary urothelial carcinomas of the bladder in 11/09. The patient subsequently underwent a complete nephroureterectomy in 12/09 showing a single non-invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis.

    Per the MPH Rule M8, this is a single primary. Is the primary site to be coded C659 [renal pelvis] or C689 [urinary system, NOS]?

    		Assign code C68.9 when multiple tumors are found in multiple urinary sites at the same time. 2011
    		20071065 MP/H Rules/Multiplicity Counter--Lung: If metastatic tumors are not counted in this field, should the multiplicity counter be coded to 01 for a case with a primary left lower lobe of lung tumor with a satellite tumor in the left upper lobe?

    For cases diagnosed 2007-2013:

    No, code multiplicity counter to 02 [two tumors present]. According to the multiple primary rules, these two lung tumors are reported as a single primary. Record the number of tumors reported as a single primary in Multiplicity Counter.

    Multiplicity Counter no longer required by SEER as of 1/1/2013.

    		 2007
    		20071023 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries: When the pathology report from a FNA or other biopsy states an "in situ" carcinoma and the patient waits more than 60 days for a more definitive procedure which documents an "invasive" carcinoma, is this reported as two primaries?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    No. When the invasive component is discovered as part of the work-up phase leading to treatment decisions, the case should not be abstracted as a multiple primary. In the rare instance when a patient has not been treated and is still having diagnostic work-up greater than 60 days after the malignancy is diagnosed, do not count the invasive diagnosis as a new primary.

    		 2007