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: 09/17/2025 15:00 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
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
20110078 MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: What is the histology code for "high-grade urothelial carcinoma, plasmacytoid variant"? See Discussion. Per the MP/H Manual, Urinary Equivalent Terms & Definitions, Table 1, plasmacytoid is a specific type of Urothelial/Transitional Cell Tumor. What is the correct histology, and rule used, when a bladder resection pathology report states, "high-grade urothelial carcinoma, plasmacytoid variant"?

Code the histology to 8082/3 [urothelial carcinoma, plasmacytoid].

The Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual is the correct source for coding histology for cases diagnosed 2007 or later. Unfortunately, in this case there is no current rule that directs you appropriately to Table 1 from Rule H7 to find this histology combination. We need to add an example under Rule H7 that instructs you to "See Table 1" for an urothelial carcinoma diagnosis that mentions a more specific cell type (e.g., plasmacytoid). We will add a reference to Table 1 in Rule H7 in the updates to MP/H Rules.

2011
20110122 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is histology coded to AML, NOS [9861/3] for a bone marrow biopsy with a diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia evolving from myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) if the cytogenetics revealed trisomy 13? See Discussion. This patient actually had no prior diagnosis of MDS. The bone marrow biopsy revealed AML evolving from MDS. Cytogenetics revealed trisomy 13 with no other abnormalities. Does the presence of a trisomy 13 change the histology to a more specific subtype of AML?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph..

This should be accessioned as a single primary per Rule M8 which states to abstract as a single primary and code the acute neoplasm when both a chronic (MDS) and an acute (AML) neoplasm are diagnosed simultaneously or within 21 days AND there is documentation of only one positive bone marrow biopsy, lymph node biopsy, or tissue biopsy. Code the histology to 9895/3 [acute myeloid leukemia with myelodysplasia-related changes].

NOTE: When you search with quotation marks around the phrase, the database will only return results with that exact wording. To only return results for the expression trisomy 13, enter in the Heme DB. In this case, a search for "trisomy 13" returns no results. Therefore, it does not impact the coding of histology for this case.

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2011
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
20110013

MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: Which MP/H rule applies in coding the histology described as a "malignant mixed germ cell tumor with the following features: Histologic type: embryonal carcinoma (97%) and yolk sac tumor (3%)"? See Discussion.

Per MP/H rule H16, code the appropriate combination/mixed code (Table 2) when there are multiple specific histologies or when there is a non-specific histology with multiple specific histologies. The combination embryonal carcinoma and yolk sac tumor is not listed in Table 2, even though the pathology report indicates this is a mixed germ cell tumor.

Should rule H17 be applied and the numerically higher histology code be used?

As of 2016: Code histology to 9085/3 [mixed germ cell tumor]. Combine 9065 and 9085 for analysis purposes.                            

2011
20110070 MP/H Rules/Histology--Endometrium: How is histology coded when clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] is stated to involve a "1.5 cm endometrial polyp"? See Discussion.

The CAP formatted pathology report histology field states, "Clear cell adenocarcinoma, NOS 98310/3)" and the tumor size comment field states, "Carcinoma involves a 1.5 cm endometrial polyp." Does rule H11 apply? Is the histology coded to clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] because this is one histologic type identified in the CAP formatted histology field? Or should rule H12 apply and the histology coded as clear cell adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp [8210/3]? Or should we code the higher histology per rule H17 apply because clear cell adenocarcinoma and adenocarcinoma in a polyp are two specific histologies?

For colon primaries, whether or not the tumor arose in a polyp is quite important. Is this also the case for primaries listed in the Other Sites category?

Code histology to 8310/3 [clear cell adenocarcinoma]. The Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual is the correct source for coding histology for cases diagnosed 2007 or later.

The following steps are used to determine the histology code:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For an endometrial primary, use the Other Sites Histo rules to determine the histology code because endometrium does not have site specific rules.

Go to the SINGLE TUMOR: INVASIVE ONLY module, which starts at Rule H8.

. Code clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] because only one histologic type is identified.

2011
20110040

Reportability--Melanoma: Is a pathology report with a final diagnosis stating only non-reportable terms, followed by a re-excision pathology report that indicates "no residual melanoma" reportable? See Discussion.

Is a case reportable if the final diagnosis on an initial pathology report states a non-reportable term (e.g., evolving melanoma, early/evolving melanoma or melanocytic nevus) and followed by a subsequent re-excision pathology report stating there is "No residual melanoma"? There is no mention in the clinical history on the subsequent pathology report that the diagnosis was thought to be melanoma following the first procedure. The first mention of the reportable term was in the final diagnosis of the subsequent pathology report that stated "no residual melanoma."

No. This case is not reportable based on the information provided. "No residual melanoma" is not diagnostic of a reportable neoplasm.

We recommend that you try to obtain more information from the clinician/pathologist for this case due to the poor documentation. Check for any additional resection performed.

 2011
20110111

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted for a patient with a history of right breast ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed in 2007 treated with bilateral mastectomies and a right chest wall mass excised in 2010 that revealed infiltrating ductal carcinoma? See Discussion.

The patient's right breast DCIS in 2007 was treated with bilateral mastectomies with negative lymph nodes and negative margins. The patient refused Tamoxifen at that time. In 2010 a right chest wall mass excision revealed infiltrating ductal carcinoma with negative axillary lymph nodes. The physician states this is a recurrence. Per MP/H rule M8 this invasive tumor must be abstracted as a new primary. Would the primary site of the 2010 tumor be coded to breast or chest wall given that the patient has a previous mastectomy?

This tumor in 2010 represents a recurrence; it is not a new primary. This second tumor would be coded as a new primary ONLY if the pathology report states that it originated in breast tissue that was still present on the chest wall. When there is no mention of breast tissue in a subsequent resection, the later occurring tumor is regional metastases to the chest wall (i.e., a recurrence of the original tumor).

In turn, this means that there was at least a focus of invasion present in the original tumor that was not identified by the pathologist. The behavior code on the original abstract must be changed from a /2 to a /3 and the stage must be changed from in situ to localized.

 2011
20110059

Histology: How do you code histology for "malignant myopericytoma"?

Report malignant myopericytoma as 8824/3 for cases diagnosed 2021 and later.

 2011
20110047

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted when a patient is diagnosed with NHL, large B-cell lymphoma in 3/2010 followed by a "recurrence of previously diagnosed" NHL per a 12/2010 liver biopsy? See Discussion.

Are there timing rules related to the comparison of slides from a subsequent hematopoietic primary diagnosis to the slides from the original hematopoietic primary diagnosis that impact the number or primaries reported?

For example, how many primaries are reported for a patient was diagnosed in 3/2010 with large B-cell lymphoma who underwent 7 rounds of chemo. Per 10/2010 PET scan, there was no evidence of disease. In 12/2010 a liver biopsy revealed, "features consistent with recurrence of previously diagnosed non-Hodgkin lymphoma." The pathologist did not compare slides to the original, but several immunoperoxidase stains were done to obtain the final diagnosis in 12/2010.

Does timing or comparison to the original slides matter for Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms? Is a comparison of slides needed as required for solid tumor "recurrences"?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

This case should be accessioned as one primary per Rule M15, 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma]. Per Rule M15 one is to use the Heme DB Multiple Primaries Calculator to determine the number of primaries for all cases that do not meet the criteria of M1-M14. The 12/2010 liver diagnosis of NHL, NOS [9591/3] is the same primary per the Multiple Primaries Calculator.

There are no timing rules for lymphoma other than rules M8-M13 which deal with the timing of chronic and acute diagnoses.

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

 2011