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.
Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: If an initial bone marrow diagnosis is "...more compatible with CMML/MPD" and within three months the final diagnosis per the oncologist is "MPD/CMML with acute myeloid leukemia transformation," is histology coded to CMML or AML? See Discussion.
09/06 BM Bx elsewhere was "compatible with MDS but more compatible with CMML/MPD" per MD notes.
10/06 BM Bx "...poor prognosis MDS, best classified as RAEB-2"
11/06 BM Bx "myeloproliferative CMML with leukemic transformation"
(on evaluation for BMT)
12/12/06 Pt was admitted with rapidly progressive disease & was started on chemo to try to get into remission for BMT. Final dx by oncologist is "MPD/CMML with acute myeloid leukemia transformation".
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code CMML for this case. Code the histology at initial diagnosis. This patient had rapid progression, but the initial diagnosis was "more compatible with CMML/MPD."
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.
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.
EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: When coding a prostate case with a date of diagnosis prior to 1995, is the EOD-Pathologic Extension-Prostate field left blank?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 1995, leave EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate field blank.
Code all EOD fields according to the EOD coding scheme in effect for that year of diagnosis.
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.
MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries/Laterality--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are to be abstracted and how is laterality to be coded for two meningiomas, one occurring at the midline and the other in the right termporal region? See Discussion.
MRI of the brain shows two meningiomas: One is stated to be 'midline' (laterality code 9) and one is stated to be in the 'right' temporal region. The rules state if same site (C700), same histology & laterality is same side or one side unknown, then abstract as single primary. Based on this, the MRI findings would be one primary, but how should laterality be coded?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract two primaries. The lateralities of both meningiomas are known. Right (code 1) and midline (code 9) are different lateralities.
CS Tumor Size--Melanoma: How is this field coded when a smaller invasive and a larger in situ melanoma are reported as a single primary? See Discussion.
Patient has a 1.2 cm lesion right upper arm with a diagnosis of melanoma in situ. A second lesion on right wrist, 0.5 cm mole, has a diagnosis malignant melanoma, Breslow's 0.78, Clark's level III.
According to the 2007 MP/H rules, this is a single primary. Because the larger lesion is completely in situ, do you ignore it altogether and go with the smaller, invasive lesion? SEER Program Manual 2007, page 127, rule 4.l, states that when two lesions are reported as a single primary, code the size of the larger lesion, which in this case would be the in situ.
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 as 005 (0.5 cm). Code CS Tumor Size based on the invasive lesion.
Use the data items "Multiplicity Counter" and "Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary" to document that there are two tumors present, in situ and invasive.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: If a tubulovillous (TV) adenoma is in situ and other polyp(s) have an invasive component, does the in situ TV adenoma still have priority and should rule H18 be applied?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, always give precedence to coding the invasive. Rule H18 applies UNLESS the adenocarcinoma in the TV is in situ and the others are invasive. In this case, code the histology of the invasive adenocarcinoma.
This clarification will be added when the MP/H manual is revised.
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.
MP/H Rules/Histology: In the absence of a tissue diagnosis, should the histology field be coded based on the findings of a suspicious cytology or a CT scan that clinically confirmed the diagnosis? See Discussion.
Cytology (brushings at ERCP) which are highly suspicious of adenocarcinoma. A CT of the abdomen performed the next day shows a mass, most likely Klatskin tumor. Can the histology be coded to Klatskin tumor [8162/3] based on the CT findings?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology to 8162/3 [Klatskin tumor] using the histology from the CT. This case is confirmed clinically based on the CT. It cannot be accessioned based on suspicious cytology.
Rule H8 in the 2007 Histology Coding Rules for Other Sites provides instructions for coding histology when the pathology report and cytology report are not available.
An official website of the United States government
Home