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: 09/18/2025 05:52 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20081064

MP/H Rules--Bladder: Is a TURBT in 4/07 that demonstrates papillary carcinoma (8130/3) followed two weeks later with biopsies that demonstrate high grade flat dysplasia/carcinoma in situ (8010/2) two primaries?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, rule M6 applies and this is a single primary.

Flat transitional cell carcinoma and carcinoma in situ of the bladder are synonymous. See the definition of "Flat Tumor (bladder)/Noninvasive flat TCC" in the Urinary Terms and Definitions section of the 2007 MP/H manual.

 2008
20081127 MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: How would the histology "micropapillary carcinoma" of the thyroid be coded for cases dx'd 2007 and after?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8260/3 [Papillary adenocarcinoma] according to rule H14.

For thyroid cancer only, the term micropapillary does not refer to a specific histologic type. It means that the papillary portion of the tumor is minimal or occult, usually less than 1 cm. in diameter.

 2008
20081090 MP/H Rules: Does the presence of metastases affect the application of the MP/H rules? See Discussion. Single lung tumors presenting in each lung but the patient also presents with bone mets? Would rule M6 apply? Or do the bone mets represent additional tumors?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the MP/H rules do not apply to metastases. Ignore metastases when applying the rules.

For the case above, use rule M6 and abstract as two primaries (right lung and left lung). The bone mets are ignored.

 2008
20081040 Reportability/Histology--Hematopoietic: If a JAK2 positive myeloproliferative disorder is reportable, how should histology be coded?

Please discuss the significance of JAK2 point mutation.

Example: Bone marrow biopsy showed hypercellular marrow with increased megakaryocytes associated with JAK2 point mutation consistent with myeloproliferative syndrome. Path comment: While the morphologic changes would be compatible with a myeloproliferative syndrome, they are not specific for this as similar findings can be seen in reactive conditions. However, a molecular diagnostic test demonstrated a positive JAK2 point mutation which would support the diagnosis of myeloproliferative syndrome. In summary, the combined histologic and molecular diagnostic findings support a myeloproliferative syndrome. The differential diagnosis would be between polycythemia vera and essential thrombocythemia. Subsequent clinical diagnosis: polycythemia vera.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Follow the instructions in the SEER manual on pages 1-4 to determine reportability.

Code the histology using all information available for the case. If the clinician reviews the case and states a particular histology based on his/her review, code that histology.

The clinician has access to all of the information available for this case. He/she uses his/her expertise to form a clinical diagnosis.

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.

 2008
20081073

CS Extension/Ambiguous terminology--Pancreas: Should an exception be made for "abuts" or "encased/encasing" regarding CS pancreas extension? See Discussion.

According to the CS Manual regarding ambiguous terminology, we do not accept "abuts" or "encased/encasing" as involvement. According to the March/April 2008 issue of "CA, A Cancer Journal for Clinicians", vol 58, number 2, an article concerning Pancreas staging by M.D. Anderson researchers/clinicians recommends defining unresectable involvement of the celiac axis/mesenteric artery with the terms "abutment" as involvement of 180 degrees or less of the circumference of the vessel, and "encasement" as more than 180 degree involvement. A large comprehensive cancer center in our area has already adopted these guidelines.

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.Follow the current CS instructions regarding ambiguous terminology. "Abuts" and "encased/encasing" are not involvement.

The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer provided the following in response to this question: This concept can be considered for CS version 2, but it would need to be made in conjunction with acceptance of that same theory in AJCC 7th Edition so that the stage can be derived. Many times what can be defined and accepted in a closed environment of a single institution research project cannot be duplicated and accepted across the nation and in every community facility. Would pathologists specify the > or < 180 degree involvement in every pathology report? It would also have to be reviewed to see if this idea has been accepted by the larger oncology community, or just the idea of a single institution.

 2008
20081071 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.

    		 2008
    		20081018 CS Tumor Size: Is a 5.5 mm tumor coded as 005 or 006? See Discussion. We interpret the CS Manual general instructions to indicate to ONLY round up to 001 when the tumor size is stated to be 0.1 to 0.9mm.

    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 CS tumor size 006. Because only whole numbers in mm can be collected, basic mathematical principles are used for rounding; 1-4 round down, 5-9 round up.

    		 2008
    		20071106

    MP/H Rules--Bladder: Does rule M6 mean that any combination of tumors with the histologies 8050, 8120-8124, or 8130-8131 are the same primary regardless of the amount of time between tumor occurrences? See Discussion.

    Many interpret Rule M7 to mean when separate occurrences of TCC of the bladder are diagnosed more than 3 years apart, it is reportable as a second primary. However, doesn't Rule M6 mean that if the histology is any combination of 8050, 8120-8124 or 8130-8131 for tumors diagnosed more than 3 years apart, they are reported as a single primary?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    Papillary, transitional cell and/or papillary transitional cell carcinomas of the bladder are a single primary using Rule M6. Rule M6 includes diagnoses within 3 years of each other AND diagnoses more than three years apart for the histologies listed. If rule M6 applies to your case, stop. Do not continue on to Rule M7.

    		 2007
    		20071048 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: If the abstractor only has the CAP protocol information from a pathology report and it does not include a "final diagnosis" label, which fields of the protocol are used to determine the histology and whether there is carcinoma in situ present in the specimen? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, if the CAP protocol is used in lieu of a final diagnosis, use all of the information in the CAP protocol. 2007
    		20071028 MP/H Rules--Lung: Why the term "nodule" is not included as an equivalent term along with tumor, mass, lesion and neoplasm in the 2007 lung multiple primary rules?

    Answer revised July 2008

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    For the purpose of applying the Lung MP/H rules, the word "Nodule" can be used interchageably with "Tumor," "Mass," "Lesion" and "Neoplasm." HOWEVER, this does NOT apply to casefinding or staging.

    This revision will be added to the next version of the MP/H rules. Sinq question 20071028 will be revised.

    		 2007