MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries: When the pathology report from a FNA or other biopsy states an "in situ" carcinoma and the patient waits more than 60 days for a more definitive procedure which documents an "invasive" carcinoma, is this reported as two primaries?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
No. When the invasive component is discovered as part of the work-up phase leading to treatment decisions, the case should not be abstracted as a multiple primary. In the rare instance when a patient has not been treated and is still having diagnostic work-up greater than 60 days after the malignancy is diagnosed, do not count the invasive diagnosis as a new primary.
Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Esophagus: Is a case with a biopsy diagnosis of "... focal areas suspicious for adenocarcinoma in situ change" reportable if the diagnosis on the partial esophagectomy specimen only includes the phrase "... with foci of high grade dysplasia; no invasive carcinoma identified"?
The case is not reportable.
The biopsy with a suspicious result (suspicious for adenocarcinoma) was disproven by the esophagectomy.
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.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: What histology would be coded when the right colon demonstrates a combined adenocarcinoma and high grade small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma [forming the dominant component] arising in a villotubular adenoma and the liver biopsy demonstrates metastatic high grade small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, start with rule H1 in the Single Tumor module. Stop at rule H4. Assign code 8263 [adenocarcinoma in tubulovillous adenoma].
Stop at the first rule that applies. Code histology based on a specimen from the primary site whenever available.
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.
Systemic/Surgery Sequence--Breast: How is this field coded for a breast cancer patient treated with a lumpectomy followed by chemotherapy and then a mastectomy?
Assign code 2 [Systemic therapy before surgery]. The code in Systemic Treatment/Surgery Sequence is related to the surgery coded in Surgery of Primary Site. For SEER, the mastectomy will be coded in the surgery field. The chemotherapy occurred before the mastectomy.
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.
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].
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.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home