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: 09/16/2025 08:44 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20091019 MP/H Rules/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: Can a diagnosis of multiple myeloma be made if a bone marrow biopsy is negative? See Discussion. Patient with large mass nasal cavity. Biopsy shows plasmacytoma. Fine needle aspiration of the acetabulum is consistent with multiple myeloma. Skeletal survey shows multiple lytic lesions. Bone marrow biopsy is negative for myeloma. In light of negative bone marrow biopsy can this case be coded as multiple myeloma?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code this case as multiple myeloma. The fine needle aspiration of the acetabulum is a biopsy of bone marrow. According to our pathologist consultant, the positive bone marrow biopsy (acetabulum) and the multiple lytic bone lesions confirm multiple myeloma. The negative bone marrow biopsy is likely due to an insufficient sample.

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
20091117 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology to be coded for a breast primary described as "tubular carcinoma (well differentiated invasive ductal carcinoma)"? See Discussion.

How are terms that are modified by parentheses to be interpreted? Do terms in parentheses modify the stated diagnosis and thus have priority over the stated diagnosis? Or would rule H17 apply and histology would be coded as duct and other carcinoma? For this case, the wording of the diagnosis and use of parentheses seem to indicate that tubular is a type of ductal carcinoma. Tubular is not listed as a specific duct carcinoma in the MP/H rules histology tables for breast.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology as tubular carcinoma [8211/3]. This is not a case of tubular AND infiltrating duct. The histology is stated to be tubular. Tubular is not a specific type of duct carcinoma. 2009
20091024

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: Are diagnoses in bladder, ureter, renal pelvis, and other urinary made prior to 2007 used in determining multiple primaries? See Discussion.

Per the General Information for MPH, Rule #3, the rules are effective for cases diagnosed January 1, 2007 and after. Do not use these rules to abstract cases diagnosed prior to January 1, 2007.

Example: Is a 2006 diagnosis of a renal pelvis primary with the histology 8130/3 and a 2007 diagnosis of a bladder primary with histology 8130/3 "multiple tumors" or is the bladder tumor a new primary because it is a single tumor at the time of diagnosis in 2007?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Use the 2007 MP/H rules for urinary sites to assess tumors diagnosed in 2007 or later.

For the example above, use the 2007 rules to determine whether or not the bladder tumor diagnosed in 2007 is a new primary. Use the Multiple Tumors module when comparing a 2007 or later diagnosis to an earlier diagnosis. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M8. The 2007 bladder urothelial tumor is not a new primary since there is an existing 2006 renal pelvis urothelial primary.

 2009
20091043

Multiple primaries--Lymphoma: Should a second primary lymphoma be accessioned if the reporting hospital disagrees with the final diagnosis stated on a review of slides? See Discussion.

Example: Patient had an original diagnosis of small lymphocytic lymphoma (9670/3) of lung in 1986 and later presents with small B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (9670/3) of small bowel in 2008 at Hospital A. Slides sent for review at Hospital B where patient was also seen. Slides there read as low grade B-cell lymphoma most consistent with extranodal marginal B-cell lymphoma of mucosal associated tissue (MALT Lymphoma). Hospital A's pathology report stated that immunostains would exclude mantle cell lymphoma and MALT lymphoma and the original pathology report has not been amended to match the outside path diagnosis. Is this a second primary of MALT lymphoma (9699)?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:The 2008 diagnosis is not a new primary according to the Definitions of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies (the tri-fold heme table) using the pathology report diagnosis from the facility where the procedure was performed (Hospital A). Since Hospital A disagreed with the slide review and did not amend their diagnosis based on the slide review, do not use the slide review diagnosis in this case.

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
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
20091131 Multiplicity Counter/Type of Multiple Tumors--Breast: How are these fields coded when a patient underwent a lumpectomy demonstrating two measured foci of invasive ductal carcinoma (1.5 cm and 3 mm) and "focally seen" in situ ductal carcinoma (DCIS) followed by a re-excision that is positive for 1.5 mm focus of residual invasive carcinoma? See Discussion.

Lumpectomy path shows two foci of invasive ductal carcinoma, 1.5 cm & 3 mm sizes, and CAP summary lists "DCIS: focally seen", no further description. The re-excision pathology specimen finds a 1.5 mm focus of residual invasive carcinoma, very close to the new inferior margin (so registrar assumed this was probably not part of the previously excised mass), and no mention of any more in situ.

Can we assume the DCIS was associated with/part of the invasive tumors because it was not measured or described separately? If we say there are 3 tumors (for the measured invasive foci), should Type of Multiple Tumors be coded 30 [In situ and invasive] or 40 [Multiple invasive]?

Code 03 [3 tumors] in the multiplicity counter. Do not count the "focally seen" DCIS because it was not measured.

Code 30 [In situ and invasive] in Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary. The single primary reported for this case is a combination of in situ and invasive tumors.

2009
20091039 CS Tumor Size--Lung:. Does code 997 (diffuse, entire lobe) for lung and main stem bronchus take precedence over a stated tumor size? See Discussion. Per SPCSM 2007 'Coding Instructions for CS Staging Data Items-CS Tumor Size' item 5c states that code 998 (diffuse, entire lung) for lung and main stem bronchus takes precedence over any mention of size. Does this apply to code 997 as well?

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 the stated tumor size rather than 997. Code 997 does not take precedence over tumor size at this time. According to CoC, the instructions in the CS Manual, Part I-27, rule 5c are to alert the user to special circumstances. Code 997 is not included because it is not diffuse for all of the sites listed. The site-specific rules and codes in the schema always take precedence. Further instructions and clarifications will be added to the lung schema, CS Manual Part II-317 in the next version of CS.

 2009
20091105

Multiple Primaries--Hematopoietic: How many primaries and which histologies should be reported for a case presenting with a 2005 diagnosis of CLL/SLL, 2006 clinical diagnosis of MDS and a 2008 diagnosis of AML? See Discussion.

2005 diagnosis of CLL/SLL (9670) with lymph node involvement, treated with FCR. 2006 clinical diagnosis of MDS secondary to chemo (9987) with CLL/SLL in remission. 2008 biopsy reveals AML (9861). Per Seer Hematopoietic Table, 9987 & 9861 are a single primary. In 6/2008 patient receives bone marrow transplant. 2009 status post BMT, BM biopsy reveals RAEB-1 (9983). Is this still the same disease process or a new primary (since status post BMT)?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Two primaries should be abstracted. Using the Definitions of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies table, compare 9670 (SLL) in 2005 and 9987 (MDS secondary to chemo) in 2006. This is two primaries.

MDS can transform to AML. On the Definitions of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies table, 9987 (MDS) and 9861 (AML) are a single primary. The AML would be documented in follow-up. (While 9670/SLL and 9861/AML are two different primaries, the SLL has already been reported.)

RAEB is a form of MDS. On the Definitions of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies table, 9987 (MDS) and 9983 (RAEB) are a single primary. The RAEB would be documented in follow-up. (While 9670/SLL and 9983/RAEB are two different primaries, the SLL has already been reported.)

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
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
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