MP/H Rules/Recurrence--Breast: Do we use a pathologists comment of "recurrent ductal carcinoma" found in the pathology report for a new specimen to determine whether the new specimen actually represents a new primary or recurrent disease? See Discussion.
The patient had a left breast cancer LIQ, ductal with DCIS. Nodes (-) diagnosed in 1998
Treatment: Lumpectomy-clear margins
Refused radiation
Hormone therapy: Tamoxifen
Present: June 2007
Left breast-invasive ductal ca, UOQ
Pathology report comments: Recurrent ductal ca.
Left axillary nodes (+)
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, apply the 2007 MP/H breast rules. Go to the multiple tumors module and begin with rule M4. Stop at rule M5: tumors diagnosed more than 5 years apart are multiple primaries.
The only time you can accept a pathologist's statement of recurrence is when the statement is made based on a review of the slides from the previous diagnosis compared to the slides from the current diagnosis.
MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many primaries should be reported when an "adenocarcinoma" is discovered in one of several new nodules at the scar in a lung and it is less than a year after a wedge resection for a diagnosis of "bronchioalveolar adenocarcinoma" in the same lung? See Discussion.
In March 2006 patient diagnosed with bronchioalveolar adenocarcinoma [8250/3] and had wedge resection. In November 2006 a CT chest shows nodules at the scar suspicious for recurrence. In January, 2007, there was a biopsy of one of the nodules showing adenocarcinoma [8140/3].
Is this part of the original disease process diagnosed in March 2006 or should it be abstracted as a new primary based on 2007 MP/H rules (histology is different at the first 3 digits)?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Try to obtain more information/clarification on the 2007 diagnosis -- for example, is it metastasis?
Based only on the information provided for this case, the 2007 diagnosis is a separate primary.
Use the 2007 MP/H rules to assess the 2007 diagnosis. Begin with rule M3 in the multiple tumors section. Stop at rule M11, multiple primaries.
Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation: If a diagnosis based solely on positive flow cytometry is reportable even if a bone marrow biopsy is negative, how is diagnostic confirmation coded?
For cases diagnosed prior to 2010
The case is reportable if a recognized medical practitioner says the patient has cancer.
A flow cytometry alone is not diagnostic but it may be supported by either a positive bone marrow or a clinician's statement. If the clinicians statement is based only on flow cytometry, code diagnostic confirmation to 8 [Clinical diagnosis only].
MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: Regarding rule H15, is the mixed code 8340 [Papillary carcinoma, follicular variant] used when there are subtypes of these histologies described, such as a tumor diagnosed with follicular and papillary microcarcinoma or should 8341 [Papillary microcarcinoma] be used?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
For coding purposes, this is a papillary and follicular combination that would be coded to the combination code 8340/3 [Papillary carcinoma, follicular variant].
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.
CS Extension--Breast: Is the term "erosion" the same as "ulceration"?
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.
"Erosion" is not synonymous with "ulceration" when coding CS extension for breast.
Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: If the bone marrow biopsy diagnosis is not reportable and cytogenetics studies indicate no clonal abnormality, is a case reportable if only the flow cytometry results show a "small monoclonal B-lymphocyte population consistent with a lymphoid component of a lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma or Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia"? See Discussion.
Bone marrow bx final diagnosis: Markedly hypercellular marrow consisting primarily of erythroid hyperplasia and, also, diffusely distributed small lymphocytes. Addendum comment: Flow cytometry demonstrated a small monoclonal B-lymphocyte population consistent with a lymphoid component of a lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma or Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia. Addendum comment: Cytogenetic analysis states no clonal abnormality was apparent. Normal female karyotype.
Question 1: Is this case reportable, and if so, what histology?
Question 2: Is there a hierarchy when flow cytometry and cytogenetics are done, but do not agree?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:This case is not reportable at this point. A lymphoid component is not equivalent to a diagnosis of a reportable disease. In order to be a malignant, reportable disease, the condition must be monoclonal and irreversible. Cytogenetics were negative for malignancy (i.e. no monoclonal abnormality identified which is the criteria used to establish this diagnosis). Use all information available when determining reportability.
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.
MP/H Rules/Recurrence: Is a subsequent diagnosis of an in situ tumor (bladder cancers excluded) a "recurrence" if it follows a prior invasive diagnosis of the original primary cancer made 5 years before?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use the 2007 MP/H rules to determine whether or not a subsequent diagnosis (either invasive or in situ) is a new primary or a recurrence. Do not use the statement "recurrence" from the medical record to make this decision.
When evaluating a subsequent diagnosis and the MP/H rules indicate "single primary," the tumor being evaluated is a "recurrence" of the original primary cancer.
MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Bladder/Renal Pelvis: Is a non-invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder diagnosed one year after the occurrence of an invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the renal pelvis reported as one or two primaries?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
This is a single primary with renal pelvis as primary site.
Use the 2007 MP/H rules to determine if the 2007 diagnosis is a new primary. Use the Urinary rules, multiple tumors module. Start with rule M3. Follow the rules down to Rule M8 and stop. This is an example of implantation effect.
First Course Treatment--Liver: Given that agents can be used that are not chemotherapy drugs, how should treatment be coded for a procedure called a "chemoembolization" when the agent used is not documented?
This issue was discussed among the national standard setters and per the SEER website this issue has been resolved as follows: When "chemoembolization" is done but the agents used are not chemotherapy drugs, then treatment should be coded as "Other Therapy." See http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/codingmanuals/embolization.html
Histology--Pancreas: How is a "gastrin and somatostatin producing endocrine neoplasm" coded that has lymph node metastasis?
The best code available for this situation is 8153/3 [Gastrinoma, malignant].
Many pancreatic endocrine tumors produce more than one peptide, such as gastrin and somatostatin in this case. ICD-O-3 does not provide a code for pancreatic endocrine tumors which produce more than one peptide. According to the WHO Classification of Tumours of Endocrine Organs, there is a distinct hormonal syndrome associated with gastrin producing tumors, and not with many of the somatostatin producing tumors. Therefore, our pathologist consultant advises us to code to gastrinoma in this case.
An official website of the United States government
Home