MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What histology code is used for a single tumor, micropapillary carcinoma with components of mixed ductal and lobular carcinoma?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H16 and assign code 8522 [Duct and lobular carcinoma].
Micropapillary is specific duct type (see Table 1).
MP/H Rules--Breast: What histology code is used for lobular carcinoma, pleomorphic type?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H14 and code the histology 8520 [lobular carcinoma]. 8520 is the only ICD-O-3 code for lobular carcinoma. There are no codes for specific lobular types.
Date Multiple Tumors--Prostate: For a prostate biopsy done 10/20/08, both lobes involved with tumor, unknown how many tumors, what would be coded in date of multiple tumors?
In this case, code the date of the biopsy in Date of Multiple Tumors [10202008]. When the number of tumors is unknown, code the date of diagnosis as the Date of Multiple Tumors. This is the date on which it was determined that there were an unknown number of tumors. This instruction will be added to next edition of the MP/H manual.
CS Extension--Brain and CNS: How is CS Extension coded for a malignant meningioma that demonstrates extension into adjacent brain tissue?
For malignant brain tumors, code 60 represents extension into the meninges. Would code 60 be the correct code for extension from a malignant meningioma into brain tissue?
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.Assign CS extension code 60 for malignant meningioma with extension to adjacent brain tissue.
According to the I&R, this section of CS was taken directly from SEER Summary Staging, since AJCC does not have a staging system for these tumors.
MP/H Rules--Breast: How many primaries should be abstracted when a patient has a mass at 6:00 that showed poorly differentiated ductal carcinoma and a hypoechoic nodule at 9:00 that was excised with no real tumor present there though path showed angiolymphatic invasion by carcinoma throughout the entire specimen? See Discussion.
Palpable mass in right breast at 6:00. Path stated 'poorly differentiated ductal carcinoma with extensive necrosis and extensive angiolymphatic invasion. Focal high grade comedocarcinoma (1%)'. Another hypoechoic nodule was seen at the 9:00 position. This mass was excised from surrounding tissue. This mass was more like an inflammatory mass; there was no real tumor present there. Path report stated "Breast mass 9:00 excisional biopsy - angiolymphatic invasion by mammary carcinoma throughout the entire specimen."
Is this two primaries because of the two different histology codes: 8500 and 8010?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract as a single primary using rule M3 (a single tumor is always a single primary). There was one tumor present according to the information provided. The second specimen was not a separate tumor ("There was no real tumor present there").
MP/H Rules--Breast: How many primaries for the following?
Breast lumpectomy: Three foci of invasive ductal carcinoma.
Tumor nodule #1 - Invasive ductal carcinoma.
Tumor nodule #2 - Invasive ductal carcinoma with tubular features.
Tumor nodule #3 - Invasive tubular carcinoma.
See Discussion.
According to the MP/H rules, this case is reportable as three primaries with histologies coded 8500, 8523 and 8211. However, our QC staff is having a problem accepting this. When the pathologist specifies that a ductal carcinoma has tubular features or is tubular type, isn't s/he saying that tubular is a type of duct? In addition, the first line of the FDx states, "Three foci of ductal carcinoma," which indicates that the pathologists interprets the three nodules to be ductal carcinoma.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
These three tumors are three separate primaries. Rule M12 applies.
According to the 2007 MP/H rules, tubular carcinoma is not a type of duct carcinoma.
Among the paramount reasons for writing the MP/H rules are the non-standard usage of nomenclature by physicians and the inconsistency in interpretation of these non-standard phrases. The MP/H rules must be applied consistently by each cancer registrar in order for data to be comparable across registries.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: How do you use Rule H5 or H6 to code "moderately diff adenoca with mucinous component"?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology 8140 [Adenocarcinoma]. Rule H6 applies because the final diagnosis is not "mucinous adenocarcinoma" and the percentage of mucinous adenocarcinoma is not stated.
Rule H13 does not apply because "component" is not a term that indicates a specific histology.
Radiation Therapy--Breast: If hospital records indicate that a mammocyte intracavitary radiation therapy device was placed in the breast, but there is no follow-up documentation of radiation actually being given, should we code radiation 2 (implants) or 8 (recommended, unknown if given)?
Assign code 8 [recommended, unknown if administered]. Check this case periodically, and others coded 8. Update if further information becomes available.
Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is a cavernoma reportable as a benign brain tumor? See Discussion.
Cavernous hemangiomas are typically described as vascular malformations in the brain. Per a search of the literature, cavernoma, cavernous hemangioma and cavernous malformation are all synonymous. There is some controversy as to whether cavernomas are vascular malformations or tumors. Cavernous hemangioma (9121/0) has been assigned a code in the ICD-O-3. The other terms are not even listed. Benign brain guidelines indicate that named tumors that have been assigned an ICD-O-3 code are reportable. Would we report a lesion that is labeled cavernous hemangioma but not one that is labeled carvernoma? Are cavernous malformations of the brain to be reported as benign brain tumors? The MP/H guidelines for benign brain tumors do not include blood vessel tumors in chart 1.
Are the following tumors reportable? If so, what is the primary site?
Example 1: Patient admitted for resection. Clinical diagnosis is left temporal cavernous hemangioma. Path diagnosis is cerebral cortex and white matter showing cavernoma.
Example 2: Patient admitted for resection with clinical diagnosis of parietal cavernous hemangioma. Path shows A-V malformation.
Example 3: Patient had T4 spinal tumor removed. Path showed cavernous angioma.
Reference: I&R 18109 and 23460
Cavernoma is a reportable benign brain tumor. According to our pathologist consultant, cavernoma is synonymous with cavernous hemangioma.
Examples
1. Reportable. Primary site - C710 [cerebrum]
2. Not reportable. Path dx disproves clinical diagnosis.
An official website of the United States government
Home