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.
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.
Multiplicity Counter: Are in situ tumors diagnosed more than 60 days after invasive tumors of the same site and histology included in the Multiplicity Counter?
If an in situ tumor following an invasive tumor is a single primary according to the multiple primary rules for that particular site, include the in situ and the invasive tumors in the multiplicity counter.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is it generally correct that the code for PNET [9473/3] should be used to code tumors arising in the brain and spinal cord, and the code for pPNET [9364/3] should be used to code tumors arising in the bone and soft tissue? See Discussion.
The terms and definitions for "Brain" in the 2007 MP/H rules distinguish between pPNET and PNET. Is it correct even when the diagnostic terminology alone would lead to other coding, such as "PNET" used to diagnose a soft tissue mass in the chest and "neuroectodermal tumor" used to diagnose a brain mass?
Should additional rules be added to both "Brain" and "Other Sites" to enforce this distinction?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Yes. Assign code 9473/3 for tumors arising in the brain and spinal cord and assign code 9364/3 for tumors arising in the bone and soft tissue.
Clarification and reinforcement of this distinction will be added to the "Other sites" terms and definitions with the first revision to the MP/H rules.
MP/H rules/Histology--Lung: How is histology coded for a path diagnosis of "pleomorphic carcinoma with adenocarcinoma, squamous, clear cell and spindle components"? Please see discussion.
Path diagnosis of lung tumor is pleomorphic carcinoma, with adenocarcinoma, squamous, clear cell, and spindle cell components. Path comment states: "While the majority of tumor displays usual adenocarcinoma-type features, elsewhere the tumor shows varying differentiation, including squamous, clear cell and spindle cell differentiation. Therefore the tumor is best categorized as pleomorphic carcinoma."
This tumor is best described by a non-specific histology. However, the MP/H rules guide the abstractor to identify a more specific histology. If we work through the lung rules, would we end up using rule H7 and code the histology with the numerically highest ICD-O-3 code?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign histology code 8022 [pleomorphic carcinoma] based on the pathologist's assessment and rule H3. He/she reviewed all of the histologic components and rendered a final diagnosis of pleomorphic carcinoma.
"Components" is not a term indicative of a more specific histology. See note under rule H5.
Radiation Therapy--Prostate: Is the regional treatment modality XRT best coded to 50 (brachytherapy, NOS), 53 (LDR) or 54 (HDR) when the documentation indicates only "I-125 seeds" to the prostate?
Assign code 53 [Brachytherapy, interstitial, LDR] for seeds to the prostate. Seeds are always low dose because they are left in place and the radioactivity decays over time.
MP/H Rules/Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Colon: Please clarify how to code diagnostic confirmation when there is no mention of a malignant polyp in the pathology report of a familial polyposis case given this statement: "Even if you have only one malignant polyp it is a single primary if there is a diagnosis of FAP. Even if there is no mention of a malignant polyp, if there is a diagnosis of FAP you will use this rule."
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
In the very unlikely event of a FAP diagnosis with no malignancy, the case would not be reportable.
When FAP is diagnosed along with a colon malignancy, it is presumed that the malignancy originated in one of the numerous polyps, even if this is not explicitly stated. Use rule M3 for any colon malignancy (in a polyp, frank, or not stated) with a diagnosis of FAP and abstract as a single primary.
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.
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].
An official website of the United States government
Home