MP/H Rules--Sarcoma: How many primaries should be abstracted for chondrosarcoma of right toe in 2002, of right lower leg in 2006 and right tibia in 2007? See Discussion.
A patient had a myxoid chondrosarcoma of the right toe in 2002. This was amputated and staged as T2 - high grade. Patient had a recurrence in the lower right leg in 2006. At this time he had a below knee amputation. The tumor in 2006 was stated to be similar histologically to the 2002 tumor with pathologic comparison done. Then in 2007 the patient presents with pain in right knee and stump. CT says compatible with recurrent disease, but no copies of path sent. Patient then had an above knee amputation, with diagnosis of clinically recurrent chondrosarcoma of tibia. How many primaries should be abstracted? Is 2007 diagnosis a new primary?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Abstract two primaries in this case, 2002 and 2007.
The first primary was diagnosed in 2002. The 2006 diagnosis would not be a new primary according to the rules in effect at that time (2004 SEER manual, page 11, rule 5, exception 1).
Use the current MP/H rules to compare the 2007 diagnosis to the 2002 diagnosis. Start with rule M3 and stop at rule M10. The 2007 diagnosis is a separate primary.
MP/H Rules--Breast: Is a ductal carcinoma diagnosed in August, 2008 following a lobular-ductal primary diagnosed in February 2007 a new primary? See Discussion.
Patient has two right breast tumors excised in February, 2007. One is lobular and the other ductal - abstracted as single primary per rule M10. Patient presents with new right breast tumor in August, 2008. This is a ductal carcinoma stated to be a recurrence. Would we again stop at M10 (single primary) or continue on to M12 and make this a new primary (difference at third number)?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Stop at rule M10 -- this is the first rule that applies. The 2008 diagnosis is not a new primary.
Race, ethnicity/Spanish surname or origin: If birthplace is Brazil or Portugal, patient's last name is on the Spanish Surname list, and there is no text to further clarify ethnicity, what is the correct Spanish Ethnicity code: 0 or 7? See Discussion.
See also SINQ 20081075.
Assign code 7 [Spanish surname only] when the last name is on the Spanish Surname list. This includes cases for which the birthplace is Brazil, Portugal or the Philippines and there is no text to further clarify ethnicity.
The instruction to use code 0 [Non-Spanish/Non-Hispanic] in the SEER manual on page 51 (#2) applies when the only information available is the birthplace or a statement of "Portuguese," "Brazilian" or "Filipino."
MP/H rules/Multiple primaries: Is a 2007 cytology diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in bile duct a new primary for a patient with a 2005 diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of gallbladder? See Discussion.
A case abstracted for an adenocarcinoma of gallbladder (C23.9) in 2005. In 2007, cytology diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in bile duct(C24.0). Oncologist calls this recurrence. There is no pathologist statement of recurrence.
Using Other Sites multiple primary rules, rule M10 indicates this is multiple primaries. Sequence 01 dx in 2005 and sequence 02 dx in 2007. Is this correct? There is no statement of a primary tumor; the MP/H rules talk in terms of mass, lesion, tumor in a primary site.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract the 2007 bile duct diagnosis as a new primary unless it is described as metastatic.
CS Extension--Lymphoma: When does the coding change take effect that is referred to in SEER edit IF195, that states localized lymphoma in primary sites C024, C090-099, C111, C142, C172, C181, and C379 must be coded to CS extension 10, and cannot be coded to extension 11? See Discussion.
CS version 1.04 does have a new note 1 in the lymphoma scheme that appears this coding change. In the past, we used code 11 with these sites for localized lymphoma and SINQ 20061088 confirms this line of thinking.
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.
This change was made with the release of CS version 01.04.00 on October 31, 2007. The rules went into effect for cases diagnosed January 1, 2008 and later. A note was added to SINQ 20061088 stating that the answer pertains to cases diagnosed prior to January 1, 2008.
CS Site Specific Factor 6--Breast: Should we assume that the invasive portion of the tumor is being referred to when a pathologist provides only a single tumor size but includes both invasive and in situ descriptors when discussing the size of that tumor? See Discussion.
There seems to be subtle variations in wording and punctuation in these cases. Would these three examples be coded the same way?
Examples:
"invasive ductal carcinoma 2.0 cm, DCIS present"
"2 cm invasive ductal carcinoma with DCIS present"
"invasive ductal carcinoma 2.0 cm. DCIS present"
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 SSF6 050 [invasive and insitu components present, entire size coded in CS TS, size of invasive not stated, proportion invasive and insitu not known] when the size of the invasive portion is not provided and clarification is not available.
If possible, obtain clarification from the pathologist for phrases like these and document in a text field. For example, a pathologist may confirm that when he/she states "invasive ductal carcinoma 2.0 cm, DCIS present" the size of the invasive portion is 2 cm. If so, code CS tumor size 020 and SSF6 020 and explain in a text field.
Reportability: Is a tubular adenoma reportable if the final diagnosis is "high grade atypia" and the diagnosis comment is "atypia limited to muscularis mucosa areas of pseudostratification [formerly qualifying for carcinoma in situ]"?
This case is not reportable.
The pathologist would need to include "carcinoma in situ" as part of the final diagnosis in order for this case to be reportable.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: Per MP/H rule H3 for colon, code 8144/3 [Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type] should not be used with C180-C189 [colon]. However, page 58 of the ICD-O-3 SEER Site/Histology Validation list of February 9, 2001 lists code 8144/3 as a valid histology for large intestine. See Discussion.
None of the errata have this site/histo combination. It is causing problems with researchers because pathologists still use the term: Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type for tumors of the large bowel. Please clarify or print errata.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
This issue has been presented to the Edits work group. The preliminary response is that 8144/3 will be removed from the valid site/histology list for large intestine, small intestine, and rectum.
The edits based on the site/type list are used by many organizations. Any change to the site/type list is taken to the Edits work group.
MP/H Rules--Breast: What histology code should be used with invasive papillary carcinoma with cribriform carcinoma component? There is also DCIS adjacent to the invasive tumor, predominant cribriform and focal papillary patterns. This is a single breast tumor. See Discussion.
Registry staff is divided between 8523 and 8255.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
First apply rule H9, code the invasive. To determine the code for the invasive histology, start with rule H10 and stop at rule H15. Code the histology 8503 [papillary]. Papillary (8503) and cribriform (8201) are listed in Table 1 as specific duct types, but in this case they are invasive.
Table 1 and Table 2 will be clarified in the next version of the MP/H rules.
An official website of the United States government
Home