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: 11/06/2024 16:30 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20071079 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.

 2007
20071016 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Bladder: The new multiple primary rule M7 states that tumors diagnosed more than three years apart are multiple primaries. Does this apply to in situ bladder tumors that occur more than three years apart and to an in situ tumor that occurs three years after an invasive tumor?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use the MP/H rules in order. Rule M6 comes before rule M7.

M6 states that bladder tumors with certain histologies are a single primary. It is a single primary regardless of timing if there is any combination of:

  • papillary carcinoma [8050]

  • transitional cell carcinoma [8120-8124]

  • papillary transitional cell carcinoma [8130-8131]

    • Rule M7 applies to bladder tumors with histologies other than those listed above. If you have such a case, rule M7 applies to in-situ tumors and to an in situ three years after an invasive.

    		 2007
    		20071082

    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.

    		 2007
    		20071015 CS Lymph Nodes/CS Mets at Dx--Melanoma: How are these fields coded if a sentinel lymph node biopsy reveals no malignancy but there is an aggregate of melanoma cells in the lumen of a large vein immediately adjacent to the lymph nodes?

    This question was answered by the CoC:

    Do not count this as regional metastatic disease since there is no evidence it is an established tumor. Stage this as a N0.

    		 2007
    		20071097 Multiplicity Counter--Thyroid: How is multiplicity counter to be coded for a thyroid cancer presenting as multiple foci? See Discussion. Thyroidectomy showed papillary thyroid carcinoma. Path diagnosis: tumor focality: multifocal. Path described 3 foci of tumor on each side. The main tumor mass in right thyroid was 1.5 cm. Smaller foci of tumor ranged in size from .1 cm to 1.0 cm. Per guidelines, "we still don't count foci as tumors for the purpose of these rules, even if there is more than one." The 1 cm tumor was probably macroscopic in size. Do we count it in the multiplicity counter? Do we count only the 1.5 cm main tumor mass?

    If the number of tumors is known, code the number in Multiplicity Counter. If foci are measured, include them in the multiplicity counter. If the only information available is "multiple foci" assign code 99.

    For the case above, code 06 in the multiplicity counter (3 tumors on each side).

    		 2007
    		20071098 Multiplicity Counter/Date of Multiple Tumors/CS Tumor Size--Lung: How are these fields to be coded when work-up of a malignancy spans a couple of months and reveals developing nodules? See Discussion. Example: Chest CT on 4-26-07 reveals 2.2 cm mass in lingula, left lung, consistent with lung malignancy. Biopsy on 5-18-07 shows non-small cell carcinoma. PET scan on 6-6-07 shows left upper lobe mass consistent with known non-small cell lung carcinoma. Second developing mass increasing in prominence since 4-07 in periphery of left upper lobe, approximately 3.6 cm which may represent intrapulmonary mets or second primary neoplasm. At least 3 additional intrapulmonary nodules have developed since 4-07, two in the left upper lobe and one in the right upper lobe, suspicious for mets.

    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.Multiplicity Counter/Date of Multiple Tumors

    Apply the multiple primary rules first and record the number of tumors determined to be a single primary in Multiplicity Counter. Record the corresponding date in Date of Multiple Tumors. These data items may be updated once if future tumors are determined to be the same primary as the initial diagnosis.

    CS Tumor Size

    Include information gathered through

  • completion of surgery(ies) in first course of treatment OR

  • all information available within four months of the date of diagnosis in the absence of disease progression

    • WHICHEVER IS LONGER.

    Metastasis known to have developed after the diagnosis was established should be excluded.

    		 2007
    		20071065 MP/H Rules/Multiplicity Counter--Lung: If metastatic tumors are not counted in this field, should the multiplicity counter be coded to 01 for a case with a primary left lower lobe of lung tumor with a satellite tumor in the left upper lobe?

    For cases diagnosed 2007-2013:

    No, code multiplicity counter to 02 [two tumors present]. According to the multiple primary rules, these two lung tumors are reported as a single primary. Record the number of tumors reported as a single primary in Multiplicity Counter.

    Multiplicity Counter no longer required by SEER as of 1/1/2013.

    		 2007
    		20071067 CS Extension/Histology (Pre-2007)--Bladder: Is the histology coded to 8010/2 [carcinoma in situ] or to 8130/2 [papillary transitional cell carcinoma, non-invasive] for a 2006 bladder tumor with a final path diagnosis of "mixed non-invasive papillary TCC and flat carcinoma in-situ" and is CS Extension coded to 01 [Papillary transitional cell carcinoma state to be noninvasive]or to 06 [Carcinoma in situ]? See Discussion. If the correct code for histology is 8130/2 and CS Extension is 06, this combination does not pass NAACCR edits.

    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.For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007, code CS Extension to 06 and histology to 8130/2. Override the NAACCR edit.

    For cases diagnosed 2007-2014, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

    		 2007
    		20071090 Multiplicity Counter/Type of Multiple Tumors--Breast: How are these data items coded for a single breast primary composed of both in situ and invasive disease when measurements are provided for both the invasive and in insitu components? See Discussion. Breast cancer, invasive duct carcinoma with DCIS, 1.3 cm, DCIS 3.7 cm. "The in situ carcinoma is very extensive in this lumpectomy. It is present contiguously from sides 1A through 1L sparing only the final 8 mm of medial margin. In situ and invasive carcinoma are prominently present along almost the entire superior margin." Is the mult counter 02 with Type of mult tumor 30, or one tumor? Because there are individual measurements for each of these tumors, code the multiplicity counter 02 [Two tumors present]. Code Type of Multiple Tumor as 30 [In situ and invasive]. 2007
    		20071012 Reportability--Melanoma: Is a skin excision final diagnosis of "melanocytic tumor with uncertain malignant potential" reportable if the path COMMENT states the initial shave biopsy diagnosis was "melanocytic tumor with uncertain malignant potential [minimal deviation melanoma]"? See Discussion.

    SKIN, RIGHT FOOT, EXCISION: CHRONIC SCARIFICATION WITH RESIDUAL ATYPICAL MELANOCYTES IN THE DERMIS IDENTIFIED, BUT COMPLETELY EXCISED.

    Comment: The prior outside biopsy report indicates that the lesion was a melanocytic tumor of uncertain malignant potential (minimal deviation melanoma) measuring at least 2.5 mm in depth. There was apparently no in situ component. Special stains performed here are similar, with positive reactivity for Melan A and S-100. The cells are atypical, but there are reactive changes, making it impossible to accurately assess the true nature of the lesion in this biopsy. If this is a minimal deviation melanoma, it would be classified as a T3 (T3a since there is no description in the outside report of ulceration) lesion. The atypical melanocytes extend to a depth of 1.1 mm in this 2 mm deep biopsy, but are completely excised, both at the deep margin and at all of the peripheral margins (closest margin is superior, with clearance of 7 mm).

    PATH FROM INITIAL BIOPSY: Diagnosis: Rt dorsal foot, shave biopsy: Melanocytic tumor of uncertain malignant potential (see comment). Tumor depth at least 2.5mm Deep margin involved. Comment: As a primary lesion, I would favor that this represents a melanocytic tumor with indeterminate biologic potential also known as minimal deviation melanoma. The lesion does extend to the deep margin and wider excision is recommended.

    		 This case is not reportable. Based on the information provided, there is no definitive diagnosis of malignancy. 2007