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: 08/29/2024 17:20 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20091098 MP/H Rules/Histology: How is histology coded for a partial vulvectomy showing "vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia III, basaloid type"? See Discussion. Is this VIN III (8077/2) or basaloid squamous cell carcinoma (8083 and change the behavior code from 3 to 2)? It seems that H4 and H6 both lead to 8083.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign 8077/2 [Squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III] for VIN III diagnoses, regardless of the type. According to the WHO Classification of Tumours (page 319), "VIN is predominately of the warty or basaloid types...."

Use the multiple tumors module to determine the histology code for VIN. Rule H21 applies.

 2009
20091106 Multiple Primaries--Urinary: How many primaries should be coded for an 8/9/07 invasive transitional cell carcinoma of right ureter; 7/9/08 non-invasive urothelial carcinoma of bladder; 11/18/08 non-invasive urothelial carcinoma of left ureter; 6/20/09 invasive urothelial carcinoma of left ureter? One primary. This is a good example of how the field effect occurs in the urinary system. From 2007 to 2008, Rule M8 says bladder and ureter tumors are not new primaries and would be documented as recurrences. Because other urinary sites are involved by 11/08 and by 06/09, do not make second primary of left ureter (Rule M4 does not apply). 2009
20091113 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded when a nipple biopsy shows Paget disease but the mastectomy specimen shows only infiltrating ductal carcinoma in the breast tissue and the nipple is negative for Paget disease? See Discussion. Biopsy of nipple showed Paget disease. Subsequent mastectomy showed two tumors proven to be infiltrating ductal carcinoma. Nipple is negative. Per MP/H rule M9, this is all counted as a single primary. Do we code histology from the most representative specimen and lose the information about the Paget disease? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology 8541/3 [Paget disease and infiltrating duct carcinoma]. Paget disease of the nipple and infiltrating duct are separate tumors. For each tumor, take the histology from the most representative specimen. The biopsy is the most representative specimen for the Paget disease. The mastectomy is the most representative specimen for the infiltrating duct. According to the multiple primary rules, tumors that are Paget disease and duct are a single primary (M9). According to the histology rules, assign code 8541/3 (H26). 2009
20091119

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries are to be reported for an adenocarcinoma of the lung in the right middle lobe of the lung and bronchioalveolar carcinoma, non-mucinous type in the right upper lobe? See Discussion.

Bilobectomy revealed two tumors, adenocarcinoma in the right middle lobe and bronchioalveoar carcinoma non-mucinous type in the right upper lobe. MP/H rule M10 states that tumors with non-small cell carcinoma (8046) and a more specific non-small cell type (chart 1) are a single primary. Does rule M10 apply to only those cases for which one tumor is stated to be non-small cell, NOS? Or do we use chart 1 to identify specific subtypes? For this case, using chart 1, would we note that bronchioalveolar is a subtype of adenocarcinoma and count this case as a single primary? Most of the MP/H rules schemas have a rule making an adenocarcinoma and a more specific type of adenocarcinoma a single primary. Would we apply rule M10 to this case and count it as a single primary? Or would we move on to rule M11 and count the case as two primaries?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M11 applies. Accession two primaries.

Rule M10 applies only to cases for which one tumor is stated to be "non-small cell carcinoma."

 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
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
20091072 Histology--Brain and CNS: How is histology coded for a "rosette-forming glioneuronal tumor" of the fourth ventricle?

Assign histology code 9505/1 [Ganglioglioma, NOS].

Rosette-forming glioneuronal tumor of the 4th ventricle is a new WHO entity. There is no current ICD-O-3 code for this. The best code available at this time is 9505/1.

 2009
20091047 MP/H Rules/Histology--Ovary: How is histology coded for "serous carcinoma, papillary invasive pattern"? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology 8441/3 [Serous carcinoma, NOS]. Use the Other Sites rules. Start with rule H8 and stop at rule H11. "Pattern" is not one of the terms used to identify a specific type (See H16), so papillary is ignored. 2009
20091116 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries - - Colon: Is a colon tumor reported as "recurrent at the anastomotic junction" just over one year after the diagnosis of a T4 colon tumor to be counted as a new primary? See Discussion.

MP/H rules do not apply to metastasis. However, it has been our experience that pathologists and clinicians tend to use the terms metastatic and recurrence interchangeably. The term "recurrence" is not limited to a tumor recurrence in the same site as a previous malignancy. Sometimes it is obvious that the clinician is using the term recurrence to describe a metastatic lesion. When a "recurrence" is located in tissue that is very different from the original primary site, it is easy to recognize that the intended meaning of the term is metastasis.

Example: Patient with squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue with recurrence in the lung.

However, when the metastatic deposit occurs in similar tissue, it is more difficult to determine the number of primaries.

Example when the term "recurrence" is ambiguous: In April 2008 patient was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the ascending colon. At the time of hemicolectomy the tumor was noted to be plastered into the paraduodenal and peripancreatic area. Patient received one dose of adjuvant chemo and then discontinued treatment. In May 2009 the patient was found to have adenocarcinoma in the transverse colon. Per the pathology report the diagnosis for segmental resection at that time showed colonic adenocarcinoma. Tumor location: tumor appears recurrent at anastomotic junction. Abdominal wall mass showed metastatic adenocarcinoma.

One has to wonder if the pathologist found a metastatic nodule at the anastomotic site and called it "recurrent." It is unlikely that the pathologist will compare this specimen to the previous tumor, having already diagnosed it as "recurrent."

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M4 applies to the example of adenocarcinoma of ascending colon diagnosed in 2008 followed by adenocarcinoma of transverse colon diagnosed in 2009. When a colon resection has taken place, the original primary site is no longer present. A colon resection usually includes a portion of uninvolved colon on either side of the tumor. A tumor diagnosed at the anastomotic junction cannot be located in the same site as the previous tumor. Use of the term "recurrent" in this case is not synonymous with "metastatic." Apply the MP/H rules. 2009
20091028

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries/Cancer-directed treatment--Lung: Is a 2008 occurrence of non-small cell carcinoma in the left lower lobe following a 1998 occurrence of the same histology in the left lung to be counted as a new primary if the 1998 primary was treated with chemotherapy and/or radiation but not surgery? See Discussion.

1998 diagnosis on non-small cell carcinoma treated with radiation and chemotherapy. In 2008, there is an abnormality in the LLL with brushings/washings positive for non-small cell carcinoma.

According to the MP/H rules, M8 states this would be a new primary. However, in the document titled " Quality Improvement Meeting August 2008," found on the SEER website, it stated that because the patient never had surgery for the initial primary there is no evidence that the patient was ever disease free. Therefore, the occurrence of the latter tumor would not be a new primary (p. 7, "colon"). Does this answer pertain only to surgery or does it apply to any type of treatment?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the 2007 MP/H rules apply if the 2008 diagnosis is a new tumor. Was there any statement that the patient was free of disease (NED) after the chemo and radiation therapy? (A patient can be disease free without surgery). If there is no statement to the contrary, no mention of metastasis from the 1998 diagnosis, and no mention of disease between 1998 and 2008, follow lung rule M8 and abstract the 2008 diagnosis as a new primary.

This lung case differs from the colon case discussed in the document titled "Quality Improvement Meeting August 2008." For the colon case, there was disease in 2003, 2005 and 2007. Based on the information provided, the 2007 diagnosis was not a new tumor because the patient was never free of disease. Therefore, the 2007 diagnosis is not a new primary. The number of reportable primaries was based on disease status over time, and was not based on the type of treatment given for the initial tumor (i.e., surgery or any other treatment modality).

 2009