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: 04/25/2026 10:08 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20081109

MP/H Rules--Breast: Patient has 2 existing primaries, both of left breast and both were pure lobular carcinoma, one was diagnosed in 1994 and the other in 2005. Now a biopsy in 2008 of a supraclavicular lymph node (laterality unknown) and subcutaneous scalp tissue show metastatic DUCTAL carcinoma. Per path report, breast is the primary site. Slides from prior tumors were not reviewed. Should this be made a new primary or assumed to be metastasis from the prior breast tumors? See Discussion.

A modified radical mastectomy was performed on 10/6/94.

The 2007 MP/H rules tell us that multiple ductal and lobular tumors of breast are a single primary; however, the rules do not apply to metastatic tumors.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Abstract the 2008 diagnosis as a new primary.

Since the primary site is unproven but stated to be breast, and since the laterality is unknown, we cannot determine that the 2008 diagnosis is the same as the 2005 or the 1994 diagnosis.

Revise this case accordingly if more information becomes available.

 2008
20081079 Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Kidney: Is a case reportable if a biopsy diagnosis of "suggestive of oncocytoma, malignant neoplasm cannot be excluded" follows a CT scan that was read as "suspicious for carcinoma"? See Discussion. Pt is nursing home resident. CT abdomen/pelvis shows a "mass in the right kidney, highly suspicious for renal cell carcinoma". CT-guided needle biopsy performed with final diagnosis: "Neoplasm suggestive of oncocytoma. A malignant neoplasm cannot be excluded." No other information is available. This case is not reportable based on the information provided. The suspicious CT finding was biopsied and not proven to be malignant. "Suggestive of" is not a reportable ambiguous term. 2008
20081028 Multiplicity Counter--Ill-defined sites: How is this field coded for Ill-Defined sites (C760-C768)? Code the number of tumors present if known. If the number of tumors present is not known, code 99 [unknown number of tumors, unknown if multiple tumors]. 2008
20081064

MP/H Rules--Bladder: Is a TURBT in 4/07 that demonstrates papillary carcinoma (8130/3) followed two weeks later with biopsies that demonstrate high grade flat dysplasia/carcinoma in situ (8010/2) two primaries?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, rule M6 applies and this is a single primary.

Flat transitional cell carcinoma and carcinoma in situ of the bladder are synonymous. See the definition of "Flat Tumor (bladder)/Noninvasive flat TCC" in the Urinary Terms and Definitions section of the 2007 MP/H manual.

 2008
20081006 Multiplicity Counter: Is there a time frame for the Multiplicity Counter or is it related to the duration for counting new tumors (i.e. 5 years for breast, etc) to capture the number of "local recurrences"? Record the number of tumors counted as a single primary at the time the case is abstracted. Later, if additional tumors are determined to be the same primary, update this field once. Do not update the multiplicity counter more than once. 2008
20081073

CS Extension/Ambiguous terminology--Pancreas: Should an exception be made for "abuts" or "encased/encasing" regarding CS pancreas extension? See Discussion.

According to the CS Manual regarding ambiguous terminology, we do not accept "abuts" or "encased/encasing" as involvement. According to the March/April 2008 issue of "CA, A Cancer Journal for Clinicians", vol 58, number 2, an article concerning Pancreas staging by M.D. Anderson researchers/clinicians recommends defining unresectable involvement of the celiac axis/mesenteric artery with the terms "abutment" as involvement of 180 degrees or less of the circumference of the vessel, and "encasement" as more than 180 degree involvement. A large comprehensive cancer center in our area has already adopted these guidelines.

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.Follow the current CS instructions regarding ambiguous terminology. "Abuts" and "encased/encasing" are not involvement.

The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer provided the following in response to this question: This concept can be considered for CS version 2, but it would need to be made in conjunction with acceptance of that same theory in AJCC 7th Edition so that the stage can be derived. Many times what can be defined and accepted in a closed environment of a single institution research project cannot be duplicated and accepted across the nation and in every community facility. Would pathologists specify the > or < 180 degree involvement in every pathology report? It would also have to be reviewed to see if this idea has been accepted by the larger oncology community, or just the idea of a single institution.

 2008
20081038

Histology/Primary site: What is the correct histology code for sarcomatoid carcinoma of the mandible diagnosed in 2007? See Discussion.

Left mandible resection: Malignant tumor, favor high grade sarcomatoid carcinoma. Please see comment.

Comment: Considering the focal stain with P63 and the consult from Mayo Clinic done on the previous biopsy, the diagnosis of sarcomatoid carcinoma is more likely.

Gross: left mandible resection...sectioning reveals a...mass that has replaced the majority of the mandibular bone and is at the medial, anterior lateral and posterior soft tissue margins and comes to within 2.4 cm of the anterior boney resection margin and 1.9 cm of the smooth articular temporal mandibular joint surface.

The combination of C411 and 8033/3 is impossible (with no override available).

Code the primary site C031 [Mandibular gingiva]. Code the histology 8033 [sarcomatoid carcinoma]. This tumor originated in the mandibular gingiva and invaded the bone (mandible) -- It did not originate in the bone. This type of tumor does not originate in bone.

 2008
20081045 MP/H Rules--Melanoma: How is histology coded for a regressing melanoma? See Discussion.

How is histology to be coded for the following tumors?

Example 1: Path showed malignant melanoma Histologic type: superficial spreading. Regression: present.

Example 2: Shave, mid back: malignant melanoma, lentigo melanoma type, level II, regression: present and prominent.

For cases diagnosed 2007-2014:

Apply MP/H Melanoma Histology Coding rule H5 and code the histologic type of the melanoma.

Code example 1 as 8743 [Superficial spreading melanoma].

Code example 2 as 8742 [Lentigo maligna melanoma].

 2008
20081031

MP/H Rules--Breast: How many primaries are abstracted if a mastectomy specimen reveals two separate invasive tumors:

#1: Invasive apocrine carcinoma, poorly differentiated, 1.2cm, (9 o'clock). -Apocrine ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), high-grade with comedo necrosis; 2.0cm (9:30 o'clock).

#2: Invasive ductal carcinoma, well-differentiated, 1.0cm (12:30 o'clock). -Minor component of DCIS, low-grade? See Discussion.

 In the MP/H Rules, Table 1 lists apocrine as a type of intraductal carcinoma. Apocrine does not appear in Table 2, the list of specific duct carcinomas. If Apocrine is a type of ductal carcinoma, then Rule M11 would make this a single primary. If it is a single primary, what is the histology?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Using rule M11, there is one primary in the left breast. Apocrine is a specific duct carcinoma. To make this more clear, apocrine will be added to Table 2 in a future revision.

To code the histology, go to the multiple tumors module and start with rule H20. Stop at rule H29 and code the histology with the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code, 8500/3.

 2008
20081062 MP/H Rules/Date of Diagnosis/Behavior--Brain and CNS: How many primaries would be reported when a December 2004 MRI shows a pineal region mass with the major differential consideration being pineocytoma; a November 2007 MRI that shows the mass has almost tripled in size; and the December 2007 resection final diagnosis is consistent with pineoblastoma? How would diagnosis date[s] and behavior code[s] be coded? See Discussion.

Dec. 2004 MRI of brain: Pineal region mass. The major differential consideration given patient's gender, age group, and imaging characteristics is pineocytoma. The differential includes pineoblastoma or germ cell line tumor. These are felt less likely.

Nov. 2005 MRI brain: stable exam since last MRI. No change in size.

Nov. 2007 MRI studies: pineal mass has almost tripled in size.

Dec. 2007 Surgical resection of pineal tumor: High grade (WHO Grade IV) pineal parenchymal neoplasm consistent with pineoblastoma.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Abstract as separate primaries:

  • 12/2004 pineocytoma (9361/1)

  • 12/2007 pineoblastoma (9362/3)

    • Complete two abstracts when a previously diagnosed non-malignant tumor transforms or progresses to a malignancy. Refer to the CDC/NPCR guidelines for Data Collection of Primary Central Nervous System Tumors, 2004. Malignant transformation is discussed on page 50.

    		2008