Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20130165 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Thyroid: How many primaries are reported and what is histology for the papillary carcinomas if a Classical cytomorphology with a follicular architecture is on the right and a Columnar cell cytomorphology with a follicular and papillary architecture is on the left? See Discussion. |
The answer seems to hinge on whether or not the two tumors differ at the third digit of histology. Can we code the histology based on the terms listed for variant or architecture? |
This is a single thyroid primary. The tumors are both papillary carcinoma with follicular architecture for the most part. Apply Rule M6 and abstract a single primary. | 2013 |
|
|
20110073 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Sarcoma: Does a prior clinical diagnosis of a metastatic deposit for a previously diagnosed sarcoma have priority if the diagnosis on a subsequent resection (18 months later) indicates it is also a sarcoma but does not state it represents metastasis from the original sarcoma primary? See Discussion. |
1/28/08 Patient was diagnosed with spindle cell sarcoma in the right gluteus muscle. Metastatic tumors were found in a vertebral body and in the lung. Chemotherapy was started.
4/22/08 PET scan done to evaluate response to chemo. The primary tumor had increased in size. New mass in the left thigh that was highly suspicious for metastasis found. (The left thigh tumor was not accessioned at that time as it was described as a metastatic tumor.)
7/3/09 Left thigh tumor was resected and path revealed spindle cell sarcoma. There was no mention that it represented metastasis.
Does the left thigh tumor represent a new primary per rule M12? Or does the previous clinical description of the left thigh tumor representing metastasis have priority? |
this is a single primary per Rule M1. According to our expert pathologist, "if multiple solid tissue tumors are present (sarcomas), then almost always there is one primary and the rest are metastases. There are infrequent occasions of multifocal liposarcoma or osteosarcoma occurring, but the patient would be treated as a patient with metastatic disease."
The steps used to arrive at this answer are:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a soft tissue primary, use one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Other Sites MP rules to determine the number of primaries because soft tissue primaries do not have site specific rules.
Go to the UNKNOWN IF SINGLE OR MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M1.
Rule M1 states, "It is not possible to determine if there is a single tumor or multiple tumors, opt for a single tumor and abstract a single primary." Given the information from the expert pathologist, this case should be reported as a single primary applying this rule. |
2011 |
|
|
20130198 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Rectosigmoid: How many primaries are accessioned for a synchronous diagnosis of neuroendocrine carcinoma and a separate adenocarcinoma arising in a villous adenoma when both arise in the rectosigmoid junction? See Discussion. | Total colectomy showed neuroendocrine carcinoma of the rectosigmoid junction, as well as a separate adenocarcinoma arising in a villous adenoma of the rectosigmoid junction. Is this a single primary per Rule M13 (a frank adenocarcinoma and an adenocarcinoma in a polyp) or Rule M16 (adenocarcinoma and a more specific adenocarcinoma)? Or are these two primaries? | Accession two primaries per Rule M17, neuroendocrine carcinoma [8246/3] of the rectosigmoid junction [C199], and adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma [8261/3] of the rectosigmoid junction [C199]. There are two tumors with ICD-O-3 histology codes that differ at the third number.
Rule M13 does not apply to neuroendocrine carcinoma. Rule M16 does not apply to this case because there are two specific histologies. |
2013 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20100017 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Prostate: Does adenosquamous carcinoma found in the prostate represent a second primary in a patient previously diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the prostate? See Discussion. | Patient was diagnosed many years ago with adenocarcinoma of the prostate and treated with hormonal and radiation therapy. The patient recently underwent a TURP and is found to have adenosquamous carcinoma of the prostate. The pathology report comment states squamous carcinoma of the prostate is rare and is often associated with a history of hormonal or radiation therapy. There is no information indicating a history of a squamous carcinoma in the urinary system that could have involved the prostatic urethra.
Would the MP/H rules make this a second primary with the histology of 8560/3 [adenosquamous carcinoma]? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, based on the limited information available for this unusual case, abstract a second prostate primary and code the histology as adenosquamous carcinoma. Rule M3 does not apply in this case. Apply rule M10. | 2010 |
|
|
20110130 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: Should a July 2011 left lower lobe mass with adenocarcinoma be accessioned as an additional primary per Rule M7 or as the same primary per Rule M12 if it is diagnosed subsequent to a September 2010 right upper lobe/right middle lobe lobectomy with clear cell adenocarcinoma in one nodule and adenocarcinoma in another nodule? See Discussion. | 09/2010: RUL/RML lobectomy: Two separate nodules. One nodule showed clear cell adenocarcinoma, and the other showed adenocarcinoma (NOS). Potential brain metastasis per scan. Patient also received chemotherapy. These are two separate primaries per rule M11.
07/2011: New LLL mass + satellite nodule, biopsy of LLL mass compatible with adenocarcinoma (NOS). Is the 07/2011 an additional new primary per rule M7? Or is it the same primary as the 09/2010 adenocarcinoma per rule M12? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: The 2011 diagnosis of adenocarcinoma, NOS in the left lower lobe lung is a separate primary.
The steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a lung primary, use the Lung Multiple Primary rules to determine the number of primaries.
The 2010 right lung bi-lobectomy showed two separate tumors that were determined to be two primaries: clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] and adenocarcinoma, NOS [8140/3]. The histology of the new left lung mass is adenocarcinoma, NOS [8140/3].
Start at Rule M3 using the MULTIPLE TUMORS module because this patient has more than one tumor. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module (i.e., from Rule M3 to Rule M12 in this case). Stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing. This patient has two tumors in each lung with ICD-O-3 histology codes that are different at the second (xxxx) digit. Abstract the LLL adenocarcinoma as a new primary [C343, 8140/3].
The patient has two tumors in each lung. The right lung showed adenocarcinoma and clear cell adenocarcinoma. The two tumors in the left lung were both adenocarcinomas. Clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310] on the right is different at the second digit from adenocarcinoma [8140] on the left. Rule M12 cannot be applied to this case, because Rule M7 is the first rule that applies to this case when processing the rules in consecutive order.
|
2011 |
|
|
20130054 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries are accessioned if a lobectomy has two tumors that are both stated to be adenocarcinoma but the pathologist states they are synchronous primaries? See Discussion. | Left upper lung lobectomy: Adenocarcinoma, poorly-differentiated (grade 3), tumor size 1.2 cm, confined to lung. Second primary lung tumor: adenocarcinoma, well-differentiated (grade 1), tumor size 0.9 cm, confined to lung. Diagnosis COMMENT: The two tumors, although both adenocarcinoma, show markedly different histologies and thus are classified as synchronous primaries. Multiple synchronous primaries are staged separately according to the 7th edition of AJCC.
The AJCC Staging Manual 7th ed states, "Multiple tumors may be considered to be synchronous primaries if they are of different histological cell types. When multiple tumors are of the same cell type, they should only be considered to be synchronous primary tumors if, in the opinion of the pathologist, based on features such as ..., they represent different subtypes of the same histologic cell type..."
In this case, the pathologist insists these are two synchronous primaries, although different subtypes are not given, because the tumors have different grades and look completely different under the microscope. The MP/H rules indicate this is a single primary. How many primaries are accessioned? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession a single primary, adenocarcinoma [8140/3] of the left upper lobe lung [C341]. 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 Lung MP rules because site specific rules exist for this primary.
Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. The patient has two tumors in the same lung with the same histology.
Do not use the AJCC Manual to make multiple primary decisions. Use the MP/H Rules to determine the number of primaries to accession. |
2013 |
|
|
20130094 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries are accessioned and which M rule applies for a 2010 diagnosis of clear cell adenocarcinoma of the left upper lobe lung followed by a 2012 diagnosis of adenosquamous carcinoma of lung origin without evidence of a primary lung tumor? See Discussion. | Patient was diagnosed with T1 N0 M0 adenocarcinoma with prominent clear cell features [8310/3] in the LUL on 08/05/2010. The patient underwent a lobectomy only.
On 10/09/2012 the patient underwent an iliac bone biopsy showing non-small cell carcinoma with glandular and squamous features [8560/3]. Clinically, the physician is calling this stage IV adenosquamous carcinoma of lung origin involving lymph nodes, spleen and bones. There were no FDG avid pulmonary nodules found. There was no pathologic comparison to the prior lung tumor.
Should the 2012 diagnosis be a new primary because the histology is different from the 2010 diagnosis? Or should this be one primary because there appears to be only metastatic disease with no new primary lung tumor identified in 2012? The choice of one primary seems supported by the fact that the 2012 tumor showed glandular and squamous features, and the 2010 tumor also showed glandular and clear cell (NOS) features. The clear cell could have been a clear cell squamous cell carcinoma. The original tumor was not re-examined. |
Accession a single primary, clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] of the left upper lobe lung [C341] diagnosed on 08/05/2010.
The MP/H Rules do not apply to the 2012 diagnosis because only metastatic sites were examined and there was no re-examination of the original 2010 tumor. Therefore, the disease process in 2012 is assumed to be metastatic from the lung primary diagnosed in 2010. |
2013 |
|
|
20120080 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Kidney, renal pelvis/Bladder: How many primaries are accessioned if the patient was diagnosed with transitional cell carcinoma in situ of the renal pelvis in October 2006, TCC in situ of the bladder in July 2008 and TCC in situ of the ureter in November 2009?. See Discussion. | Per MP/H rule M8, the TCC in situ of the bladder diagnosed in July 2008 is the same primary as the TCC in situ of the renal pelvis diagnosed in October 2006. Should the new TCC in situ of the ureter diagnosed in November 2009 be a new primary per rule M7 because the renal pelvis TCC in situ was diagnosed in 2006? Or does the 3 year time frame for rule M7 start from the date of the last recurrence (July 2008)? | Abstract two primaries for this scenario per Rule M7. The first primary is the renal pelvis in Oct. 2006; the second primary is the ureter in Nov. 2009. The bladder tumor in July 2008 is not a new primary per Rule M8.
Compare the diagnosis date of the current (most recent) tumor to the diagnosis date of the original tumor. This applies even if the patient had six occurrences in-between these dates; you still compare the current tumor to the diagnosis date of the original tumor and ignore recurrences in this process. See slide 6 of the Beyond the Basics presentation, http://www.seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/training_adv/SEER_MPH_Gen_Instruc_06152007.pdf. |
2012 |
|
|
20100034 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Esophagus: Should two separate nodules of adenocarcinoma with one at the GE junction [C160] and one arising in Barretts esophagus of the distal esophagus [C155] be accessioned as a single primary because these sites are now grouped together in the same stage grouping per the AJCC 7th Edition? See Discussion. | Per notes included in CSv2, the cardia/EGJ, and the proximal 5cm of the fundus and body of the stomach [C16.0-C16.2] have been moved from the Stomach chapter and added to the Esophagus chapter effective with AJCC TNM 7th Edition. A new schema, EG Junction, was created in CSv2 to accommodate this change. Tumors arising at the EGJ, or arising in the stomach within 5 cm of the EGJ and crossing the EGJ are staged using the schema for EG Junction. MP/H Rule M11 states that tumors with ICD-O-3 topography codes that are different at the second (Cxxx) and/or third characters (Cxxx) are multiple primaries.
In light of the fact that tumors of the GE junction are now included with tumors of the esophagus in AJCC 7th Edition, will the MP/H rules also be adjusted to reflect that change? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use the multiple primary rules to determine the number of primaries. Use staging resources for staging. Abstract two primaries for the case example using Rule M11. | 2010 |
An official website of the United States government
