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: 08/07/2024 07:11 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20091126 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Vagina: How many primaries should be abstracted for a patient with a complex history of multiple occurrences of vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VAIN III) between 2001 and 2008 and invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCCA) of the vagina diagnosed in 2006 and again in 2008? See Discussion. Patient had VAIN III in March of 2001. She had a partial vaginectomy and then continues to have laser surgery in 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2006 for recurrences. In 12/2006 she is diagnosed with SCCA of the vagina with microinvasion (new primary). Then in 2/2008 she has VAIN III again -- new primary according to rule M10 (more than 1 year later). An invasive SCCA of the vagina is again diagnosed in 9/2008. Is this another new primary per rule M15 (invasive after in situ)? Every instance in 2008 is called a recurrence, but we disregard that statement.

There are two primaries according to the information provided.

1. VAIN III March 2001.

2. SCCA of vagina Dec. 2006 (invasive tumor following an in situ

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the MP/H rules apply to new tumors, which means that there has been a disease-free interval at some point. In this case, the patient has never been declared disease-free (NED) using the information provided in the question. The consistent recurrence of VAIN is typical of this disease.

 2009
20091057 CS Site Specific Factor--Lymphoma: Can the term "intermediate risk" be used to code IPI score? See Discussion. Patient has Hodgkin disease. The physician states that the patient has bulky stage IIA intermediate risk disease. Is the term "risk" another way of stating IPI score? If so, how would intermediate risk be coded?

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.Code SSF 3 for lymphoma based on the IPI score stated in the record. Do not attempt to interpret statements or terms in order to assign a code to SSF 3. If no further information is available for this case, code SSF 3 999 [Unknown].

 2009
20091107

CS Extension--Lymphoma: Does peripheral blood involvement affect the stage for lymphoma? See Discussion.

2009 Diagnostic Year

Lymph node bx is positive for Mantle Cell lymphoma. Flow cytometry on lymph node tissue shows CD+ pos B cell lymphoproliferative disorder. IHC findings support Mantle Cell lymphoma. Flow cytometry on peripheral blood shows CD+ B cell lymphoproliferative disorder. Because the lymph node is positive for Mantle Cell lymphoma and the flow cytometry findings are the same on the lymph node tissue and peripheral blood, is the peripheral blood involved (Stage IV disease)?

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.No. Peripheral blood is not the same as bone marrow involvement which is what would be required for stage IV.

Lymphomas can arise in lymph nodes which are connected by lymphatic vessels. Both lymphatic vessels and blood vessels travel through lymph nodes and malignant cells can travel between the vessels. Cells in peripheral blood do not prove Stage IV.

 2009
20091120

MP/H Rules/Histology--Esophagus: Should the modifying expression "with areas of" be used to code histology? See Discussion.

Patient was found to have two tumors in the esophagus. The large tumor was diagnosed as adenocarcinoma with areas of neuroendocrine differentiation (small cell carcinoma). The smaller tumor was diagnosed as small cell carcinoma. If we accept the "areas of" to be part of the diagnosis, rule H16 indicates that histology for the large tumor would be coded 8045 (combined small cell and adenocarcinoma). If we ignore the "areas of," then histology for the large tumor would be coded to 8140 (adenocarcinoma). Either way, when counting primaries, rule M17 would be applied and the two tumors would be classified as separate primaries. However, it seems that the two tumors are probably the same disease process since they both show small cell carcinoma.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, do not use the modifying expression "with areas of" to determine a more specific histology per rule H13 in the MP/H rules.

 2009
20091092

MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How should Diagnosis Date, Diagnostic Confirmation and Histology be coded for the LEFT lung mass in the following case?

PET shows a 3 cm mass in the left lung and a 2.9 cm mass in the right lung. No reportable terminology in PET. The right mass is biopsied and shows adenocarcinoma. The left mass is not biopsied. Based on rule M6, this should be reported as two primaries. No additional information in medical record. Patient expired.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

For date of diagnosis, use the date of the PET scan for both primaries. For the left tumor, assign diagnostic confirmation code 8 [Clinical diagnosis only] and assign histology code 8000/3 [malignant neoplasm].

The left lung mass is reported as a separate primary because there is one tumor in each lung. According to Rule M6, when there is one tumor in the left lung and one tumor in the right lung, each tumor is a separate primary. Tumor and mass are equivalent terms for purposes of the multiple primary rules.

 2009
20091078 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Head & Neck: How many primaries should be reported when an invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the right mandibular body (C06.9) was diagnosed in 2004 (treated with surgery and radical neck dissection), and an invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the left buccal mucosa (C06.0) was diagnosed in 2007? See Discussion. According to the MP/H Rules, it appears Rule M12 would apply since none of the others fit and these would be a single primary.

For cases diagnosed 2007-2014:

Based on the information provided, the primary site code for the 2004 primary should be C031 [mandibular gingiva, lower alveolar mucosa, etc.].

The 2007 diagnosis would be a separate primary according to rule M7 because the patient was disease free following treatment for the 2004 diagnosis. C031 and C060 are different at the third character.

 2009
20091049 P/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung/Breast: Can we assume that a current tissue specimen is a recurrence of previous primary if a pathologist states that he has compared the current specimen with the slides from the prior tumor and concludes that the current tumor is "similar" to a previous tumor? See Discussion.

The MP/H rule general information section states that we do not accession a second primary unless a pathologist compares the current tumor to the original tumor and states that the current tumor is a recurrence of cancer from the previous primary. In our experience it is rare that a pathologist speaks so bluntly. They frequently hedge somewhat.

Are the following statements worded strongly enough for us to make the assumption that the current tumor is a recurrence of patient's previous cancer?

Example 1: Pathologist states: Patient's prior lung tumor reviewed. The tumor in the current case (left lower lobe) shows similarities to some areas of the patient's prior left lower lobe tumor.

Example 2: Pathologist states: The focus of ductal carcinoma in the mastectomy specimen does resemble the carcinoma in the previous partial mastectomy specimen. (Slides reviewed).

All pathologists do not use words in the same way. Therefore, we will not provide a list of specific words to accept or not to accept in order to determine recurrence. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, do not base your decision about recurrence on words such as "similar" or "resembles." If the pathologist believes two or more tumors are the same or believes one is a recurrence of another after comparison, accept it. When pathologists believe that two or more tumors are not the same or believe that one is not a recurrence of another, there is usually a strong statement indicating that opinion. 2009
20091089 Histology--Hematopoietic: How is histology coded for a "chronic lymphocytic leukemia with plasmacytic differentiation"?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Assign histology code 9823/3 [Chronic lymphocytic leukemia]. Plasmacytic differentiation does not indicate a plasma cell or plasmacytic leukemia.

For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.

 2009
20091009 MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney: How do you code histology for a renal cell carcinoma when pathologists disagree as to whether or not the tumor is consistent with thyroid-like follicular carcinoma of the kidney? See Discussion. Final diagnosis states 'left radical nephrectomy, renal cell carcinoma.' The CAP Histologic Type is listed as: Unclassified, most consistent with primary thyroid-like follicular carcinoma of the kidney.' Because of the unusual histology it was sent for a consult to a genitourinary pathology specialist. His response was: 'histologic features not typical for any of the known subtypes of renal cell carcinoma and are not consistent with primary thyroid-like follicular carcinoma of the kidney, a distinct renal tumor that we have recently published in the literature.' The tumor was TTF-1 negative, arguing against metastasis from a thyroid primary. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8312 [renal cell carcinoma, NOS]. The diagnosis is renal cell carcinoma, but the specific type is in question. 2009
20091025

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: How should we handle urinary tract tumors diagnosed before the MP rules went into effect when determining the number of primaries to report primaries? How do you apply rules M5, M6 and M8 when an invasive bladder tumor and other urinary site tumors occur before and after the effective date of these rules? See Discussion.

Example: Patient with a prior in situ carcinoma of the bladder in 11/89, left ureter papillary transition cell carcinoma in situ diagnosed in 5/05, left renal pelvis papillary transition cell carcinoma in situ diagnosed in 8/07 and invasive bladder carcinoma diagnosed in 3/08. When an invasive bladder tumor and other urinary site tumors occur, do you stop with the bladder at rule M5 and M6 never reaching M8?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Use the 2007 MP/H rules for urinary sites to assess diagnoses made in 2007-2014. Use the multiple tumors module to compare a diagnosis in 2007-2014 to an earlier diagnosis.

For the example above, start by comparing the left renal pelvis diagnosis in 8/07 to the earlier left ureter primary diagnosed 5/05. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M8. The 8/07 renal pelvis diagnosis is not a new primary. Next, compare the 3/08 bladder tumor to the earlier left ureter primary diagnosed 5/05. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M5. The 3/08 bladder tumor is a new primary because it is an invasive diagnosis following an in situ diagnosis. Use only the more recent of the two earlier urinary diagnoses for comparison. Do not compare the 2007 and later diagnoses to the 11/89 in situ bladder primary in this case.

 2009