MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted when two tumors occur in one breast and both are ductal with the smaller tumor representing tubular carcinoma [variant]? See Discussion.
Right breast partial excision: Two invasive foci, one measuring 0.2cm and the second measuring 0.5cm. Both lesions are ductal carcinoma with the smaller representing tubular carcinoma (variant).
The breast histology table does not list tubular as a type of ductal, however, the pathologist states ductal carcinoma, tubular variant.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is two primaries of the right breast, using the 2007 MP/H rules. For the purposes of the 2007 rules, tubular is not a specific type of duct. Duct carcinoma (8500) and tubular carcinoma (8211) are different at the second digit of the histology code. Rule M12 applies, making these separate primaries.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: Is a "papillary carcinoma of the thyroid" coded to 8260/3 [Papillary adenocarcinoma] per the ICD-O-3 because it lists "papillary carcinoma of the thyroid" as a synonym for that code or should it be coded to 8050 [Papillary carcinoma, NOS]?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8260 [papilary carcinoma of the thyroid].
Grade, Differentiation: How is grade coded for cases using the FNCLCC (Federation Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre Ie Cancer) system? See Discussion.
Is FNCLCC a recognized system in the United States? Tongue was the primary site for the case we saw that used FNCLCC.
Do not code the data item Grade based on the FNCLCC grade. You may record the FNCLCC grade in a text field.
CS Tumor Size: Is a measured "area" equivalent to a tumor, mass or lesion size? See Discussion.
Collaborative Stage manual, page 26
Rule 4a: "always code size of the primary tumor, not size of the polyp, ulcer, cyst or distant metastasis."
Rule 4e: Additional rule for breast primaries: Example: Duct carcinoma in situ covering a 1.9 cm area with focal areas of invasive ductal carcinoma. Record the tumor size as 1.9 cm.
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.In general, a measured area is not equivalent to a tumor size.
Do not apply the rule related to the breast example to other primary sites. This example in the CS manual pertains to coding tumor size for breast primaries when the size of the invasive component is not stated. In the example, the area involved with duct carcinoma in situ is the only measurement available. The size of the invasive component was not given.
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).
CS Extension--Ovary: Are "non-invasive implants" identified per pathology coded differently than "invasive implants"?
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.No, non-invasive and invasive implants are not handled differently in collaborative staging for ovary.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How many primaries should be abstracted when a patient has an adenocarcinoma with bronchioalveolar-like features in the right upper lobe, adenocarcinoma in the right middle lobe and non-small cell carcinoma with clear cell features in the right lower lobe? See Discussion.
A RUL lung wedge resection and RML and RLL lobectomies were performed. The RUL resection showed invasive adenocarcinoma with bronchioalveolar-like features. Tumor size 9x.9x.8cm. The RLL lobectomy showed invasive non-small cell carcinoma with clear cell features. Tumor size 4.1x2.5x1.8cm. The RML lobectomy showed invasive adenocarcinoma. Tumor size 3.0x1.6x2.2cm.
Comment: Essentially three invasive tumors and a focus of bronchioalveolar carcinoma were identified in 3 specimens. All of the tumors appear somewhat histologically different. The larger tumors in the right upper and middle lobe were somewhat similar but still appear histologically different and therefore the pathologic staging is done based on all tumors being separate. The pathologic staging for this case is pT2(4) pN0 pMX.
What histology code and what site code are to be used on each abstract?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Abstract two primaries:
C349 with histology coded to 8140 - invasive adenocarcinoma (RUL and RML)
C343 with histology coded to 8310 - invasive non-small cell carcinoma with clear cell features (RLL)
First, determine the number of tumors. There are three separate tumors in right lung in the example above:
RUL: invasive adenocarcinoma, bronchioalveolar-like features (8140, "-like" is not on the list of ambiguous terms used to code histology)
RLL: invasive non-small cell carcinoma with clear cell features (8310)
RML: invasive adenocarcinoma (8140)
Because there are three tumors, begin with rule M3 in the Multiple Tumors module. Stop at rule M11, multiple primaries for the tumor in the RLL (8310) compared to the tumors in the RUL and RML (8140 and 8140).
Now evaluate the tumors in the RUL and RML using the multiple primary rules. Start at rule M3 and stop at rule M12, single primary.
CS Site Specific Factor--Lymphoma: Can the registrar calculate the International Prognostic Index (IPI) score from information found in the H&P or on the back of a TNM form for the SSF 3 field if the physician does not document it in the medical record?
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.Record the IPI score in SSF3 when the score is documented in the medical record. If the score is not stated, do not calculate it.
Ambiguous Terminology/Date of Conclusive Terminology: If there is an unknown date of diagnosis, should the Ambiguous Terminology field always be coded to 9 and the Date of Conclusive Terminology be coded to 99999999? See Discussion.
Scenario: Mammogram is suspicious for carcinoma, unknown date in 2007. A biopsy prior to admission to reporting facility is positive for carcinoma. Patient seen at reporting facility in June 2007 for treatment.
The purpose of the data item "Ambiguous Terminology" is to flag cases entered into the registry based on a diagnosis with ambiguous terminology. Because the case above was entered into the registry based on conclusive terminology, code Ambiguous Terminology to 0 [Conclusive term] and code Date of Conclusive Terminology to 88888888 [not applicable].
Type of Multiple Tumors--Colon: How is this field coded for a case in which the patient is found to have two in situ polyps and an adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp all in the same segment of the colon? See Discussion.
Code 30 would not count the fact that these are polyps. Code 31 states "AND a frank adenocarcinoma." What would be the correct code?
Assign code 30 [In situ and invasive] in this case. Code 31 does not apply here because frank adenocarcinoma is not present.
An official website of the United States government
Home