System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 09/12/2025 12:56 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20071003 MP/H Rules/Histology--Prostate: If a patient is stated to have prostate "cancer" but a pathology report is not available nor is a specific histology stated in the medical record, can this histology be coded to 8140 [adenocarcinoma] instead of 8000/3 [cancer] because the vast majority of prostate cancers are adenocarcinomas?

For cases diagnosed 2007 and later, the correct histology code is 8000/3 [cancer]. The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). Go to the Other Sites Histology rules because no specific rules have been developed for prostate primaries.

To determine the histology, start at the SINGLE TUMOR: INVASIVE ONLY module, rule H8. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. Code the histology documented by the physician when there is no pathology/cytology specimen or the pathology/cytology report is not available. Code the histology as 8000/3 [cancer] because that is the only available information. In the absence of a pathology report or any other histologic confirmation, code the histology based on the information available.

2007
20071037 CS Extension--Breast: Is the term "erosion" the same as "ulceration"?

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.

"Erosion" is not synonymous with "ulceration" when coding CS extension for breast.

 2007
20071098 Multiplicity Counter/Date of Multiple Tumors/CS Tumor Size--Lung: How are these fields to be coded when work-up of a malignancy spans a couple of months and reveals developing nodules? See Discussion. Example: Chest CT on 4-26-07 reveals 2.2 cm mass in lingula, left lung, consistent with lung malignancy. Biopsy on 5-18-07 shows non-small cell carcinoma. PET scan on 6-6-07 shows left upper lobe mass consistent with known non-small cell lung carcinoma. Second developing mass increasing in prominence since 4-07 in periphery of left upper lobe, approximately 3.6 cm which may represent intrapulmonary mets or second primary neoplasm. At least 3 additional intrapulmonary nodules have developed since 4-07, two in the left upper lobe and one in the right upper lobe, suspicious for mets.

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.Multiplicity Counter/Date of Multiple Tumors

Apply the multiple primary rules first and record the number of tumors determined to be a single primary in Multiplicity Counter. Record the corresponding date in Date of Multiple Tumors. These data items may be updated once if future tumors are determined to be the same primary as the initial diagnosis.

CS Tumor Size

Include information gathered through

  • completion of surgery(ies) in first course of treatment OR

  • all information available within four months of the date of diagnosis in the absence of disease progression

    • WHICHEVER IS LONGER.

    Metastasis known to have developed after the diagnosis was established should be excluded.

    		 2007
    		20071130 Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are schwannomas of the spinal cord reportable when they are intradural? See Discussion. The CNS guidelines basically indicate that schwannomas must all come from peripheral nerves and thus are not reportable when they are on the spinal cord. However, the COC Inquiry 18174 & 18068 states that schwannomas occasionally will develop inside the dura (intradural) on the spinal cord and would be reportable.

    According to an expert consultant, schwannomas must be derived from Schwann cells which are not a part of the CNS. All schwannomas come from peripheral nerves. Benign and borderline tumors of the peripheral nerves (C47_), including peripheral nerves along the spinal cord, are not reportable.

    Please see http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/npcr/training/index.htm for more information.

    		 2007
    		20071001 CS Site Specific Factor/Melanoma: How is CS SSF1 (depth of invasion) coded for a melanoma that demonstrates dermal invasion to a depth of "less than .2 mm" be coded to 999 [unknown]? See Discussion.

    The path report says "superficial spreading malignant melanoma; 2 areas of papillary dermal invasion to depth of less than .2mm."

    The revised CS pages include codes for "less than" a certain tumor size, but these are not included in the depth of invasion SSF. Using 999 results in an unstageable melanoma, when we know it is "less than .2mm".

    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 SSF1 (depth of invasion) to 019 [.19mm]. For any case with an SSF1 code in the range of 001-100 mm, the T category will be determined using CS extension and SSF2 [ulceration]. All cases with an SSF1 code in the range of 001-100 mm will map to a T1 (either T1NOS, T1a or T1b).

    		 2007
    		20071087 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries are abstracted when bilateral breasts contain DCIS? Is a physician statement referring to this situation as one primary ignored? See Discussion. Patient has microcalcifications both breasts. Has bilateral mastectomy. Path report states Left breast multifocal DCIS predominantly micropapillary. Right breast two foci of DCIS micropapillary.

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    There are two primaries in this case.

    Using the 2007 MP/H rules for breast, go to the multiple tumors module and start with Rule M4. Stop at rule M7. Tumors on both sides (right and left) are multple primaries.

    Always use the 2007 Multiple Primary rules to determine the number of primaries. Do not use the physician statement.

    		 2007
    		20071066 Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: Can grade be coded from the pathology report for a recurrent bladder cancer specimen? See Discussion. In 2006 a TURB was done for bladder carcinoma diagnosed 10 years ago. Is grade always coded 9 on class 3 cases unless the original slides were reviewed?

    Code grade from the original tumor; do not code grade from recurrence.

    If the grade of the original primary tumor is specified, code it, regardless of class of case.

    		 2007
    		20071099

    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.

    		 2007
    		20071051 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: Please clarify the multiple primary rule M6 and the explanatory note that states when there is a single tumor in each lung, they are to be reported as multiple primaries unless stated or proven to be metastasis. See Discussion. Single tumor in left lung, single tumor in right lung. The rules take you to M6. Suppose the tumor in left lung is biopsied and there is a physician statement that right lung tumor is metastatic from left lung tumor. The note under M6 is "When there is a single tumor in each lung, abstract as multiple primaries unless stated or proven to be metastatic." In this case, is it a single primary or multiple primaries?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    When there is a single tumor in one lung and a single tumor in the other lung, apply rule M6 and abstract as multiple primaries. Use this rule whenever there is a single tumor in each lung, even when neither tumor is biopsied or resected.

    This rule is unique to lung. Our physician advisors emphasized that it is very unlikely that a single tumor in one lung could be metastatic from a single tumor in the opposite lung. Therefore, the default is to abstract as multiple primaries.

    The note at M6 means that there must be proof that one tumor is metastatic in order to abstract as a single primary. For example, a biopsy of the tumor proving that it is metastatic. An opinion or belief that one tumor is metastatic is not sufficient. In the absence of proof, use rule M6 and abstract as multiple primaries.

    A list of MP/H clarifications will be available. This issue will be included on the list.

    		 2007
    		20071129

    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.

    		 2007