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.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: Regarding histology rule H21, is there a hierarchy or do you code the higher histology if there is an adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp and an adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
If you arrive at H21 and have an additional decision to make regarding the use of 8210, 8261 or 8263, you must make another pass through the histology rules. The second pass will determine which of the two or three histology codes to assign. The answer will vary depending of the specifics of the case.
Example:
Transverse colon: Adenocarcinoma in an adenomatous polyp involving muscularis propria and adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma involving subserosa of transverse colon. Start with rule H15 because there are multiple tumors. Stop at H21 -- code either 8210 or 8261. To decide between 8210 and 8261, make a second pass through the histology rules, starting again with H15. Stop at H20. Code the histology of the most invasive tumor, 8210 [Adenocarcinoma in adenomatous polyp].
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.
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.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: How is "invasive lobular carcinoma with signet ring cell features (95%) and ductal features (5%)" coded for a single tumor diagnosed prior to 2007?
For cases diagnosed 1/1/04-12/31/06, code histology to 8524 [Lobular mixed with other types of carcinoma]. Assuming there is no mention of in situ, Histology Coding Rule 3 applies: Use a mixed histology code if one exists
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.
Multiplicity Counter-Breast: The general instructions say to ignore separate microscopic foci when determining when to use the single tumor or multiple tumor modules. Do these instructions apply if sizes are given for the foci? See Discussion.
For instance, would a 1.2 cm breast tumor with 3 scattered microscopic foci ranging from 2-4 mm be treated as multiple tumors (4), or as a single tumor?
If the microscopic foci are measured and listed as part of the diagnosis, they should be counted as multiple tumors.
Histology--Corpus uteri: Because coding a pathology final diagnosis of "serous carcinoma" for an endometrial primary to 8441/3 triggers the site/histology error in the SEER Edits, should histology be coded to 8010/3 [Carcinoma, NOS] instead?
Assign histology code 8441 [serous carcinoma] and override the edit. Endometrium with serous carcinoma is NOT one of the "impossible" site / histology combinations.
Reportability/Histology: Is a case reportable if the Final Diagnosis in a pathology report indicates a non reportable diagnosis but the Diagnosis Comment on the same report indicates a non reportable diagnosis followed by a reportable diagnosis in parenthesis? See Discussion.
08/13/2007 polypectomy final diagnosis: tubulovillous adenoma with severe epithelial atypia. Dx Comment (on same path) ...atypia including focal cribriform glandular architecture (carcinoma in situ).
This case is reportable as carcinoma in situ. The histology code is 8263/2 [adenocarcinoma in situ in a tubulovillous adenoma].
According to our pathologist consultant, a "comment" in a path report is a part of the diagnosis - it often elaborates on or clarifies the diagnosis. Placing [carcinoma in situ] in the comment, even in parentheses, indicates that is the appropriate diagnosis for our purposes.
MP/H Rules/Recurrence--Breast: If the pathologist and oncologist call a 2007 lobular carcinoma that appears in a skin nodule of a mastectomy scar a recurrence of a patient's 1975 primary breast duct carcinoma, should we abstract this as a new primary? See Discussion.
According to the pathologist and oncologist, the change in histology is attributed to the present availability of E-cadherin, which was not available in 1975.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract the 2007 diagnosis as a separate primary using rule M5.
Rule M5 applies to this case because it comes before rule M12. Furthermore, based on your statement, the answer presumes that the original tumor was duct carcinoma only, there was no lobular carcinoma present. This must be a new primary because there are two different histologies.
The 2007 MP/H rules were developed with input from clinicians. They advised that a subsequent breast tumor more than five years later is a new primary. It is important to apply the rules so that these cases are handled in a consistant manner across all registries.
MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries/Histology--Prostate: How many primaries should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded for a case in which the pathology specimen showed adenocarcinoma in 20% of the tissue and sarcoma in 50% of the tissue? See Discussion.
Patient has TURP. The final path diagnosis is adenocarcinoma in 20% of tissue and sarcoma in 50% of tissue.
Because it is unknown whether there is a single or multiple tumors, rule M1 (Other Sites) is used which states the case is to be abstracted as a single primary.
Single invasive histology rules are followed to rule H16, but table 2 does not contain a mixed code for this situation, even though ICD-O-3 has a code 8933/3 for "adenosarcoma". Therefore, rule H17 is applied that states to use the highest code, which in this case would be 8800/3 [Sarcoma, NOS]. Is this correct?
For cases diagnosed 2007-2014, code as two primaries, one adenocarcinoma and the other sarcoma.
This is two tumors (adenocarcinoma and separate sarcoma) until proven otherwise. Do not code as adenosarcoma, as this is a gyn-specific diagnosis. Adenosarcoma of the prostate is not a recognized entity in the WHO classification of prostate tumors.
An official website of the United States government
Home