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: 09/06/2024 10:14 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20160046

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Bladder: How many primaries should be reported for the case below? See discussion.

1993 Renal pelvis: Papillary urothelial carcinoma

1994 Bladder: Noninvasive bladder ca NOS

6/11/13 Bladder: Noninvasive papillary urothelial carcinoma

8/19/14 Bladder: urothelial carcinoma in situ

2/13/15 Bladder: Papillary urothelial carcinoma

Would this situation be 2 primaries - 1993 Renal pelvis and 1994 Bladder with the 2015 being the same primary as 1993 Renal pelvis? Or 3 primaries - 1993 Renal pelvis, 1994 Bladder, 2015 Bladder?

Abstract four primaries, 1993 renal pelvis, 1994 bladder, 2013 bladder, and 2015 bladder.

The 1993 renal pelvis diagnosis and the 1994 bladder diagnosis are separate primaries based on the rules in effect at that time (See pages 7-11, http://seer.cancer.gov/archive/manuals/historic/codeman_1992.pdf )

For the remaining diagnoses, the 2007 MP/H rules apply. The 2013 bladder diagnosis is a new primary per rule M7. The 2014 bladder diagnosis is not a new primary per rule M6. The 2015 bladder diagnosis is a new primary per rule M5.

2016
20160019

Reportability--Lung: Is a case of pulmonary metastatic leiomyoma (favored) vs. low grade leiomyosarcoma reportable, and if so, what is the primary site and histology code?  See Discussion.

Patient presents with an abnormal chest x-ray. PET reveals 4.6 cm left lower lobe mass and several additional bilateral nodules measuring up to 1.6 cm. Biopsy was recommended and is positive for metastatic histologically benign smooth muscle neoplasm. ER/PR are positive. Mayo consult on biopsy agrees with histology. The differential diagnosis includes benign metastasizing leiomyoma and low grade leiomyosarcoma. Comment: If these nodules remain small and do not progressively grow would consider this metastasizing leiomyoma. Physicians state bilateral pulmonary metastatic leiomyoma (favored) vs low grade leiomyosarcoma. Tamoxifen was started. Patient has a history of uterine fibroids. Several months later, imaging reveals stable bilateral multi pulmonary nodules and left lower lobe mass but persistent. Surgery was recommended but cancelled due to insurance.

This case is not reportable based on the information provided. The histologic diagnosis is "metastatic histologically benign smooth muscle neoplasm." The physicians seem to agree with the histologic diagnosis, benign metastasizing leiomyoma (BML). The WHO classification and ICD-O-3 assign 8898/1 to "metastasizing leiomyoma." WHO states "This resembles a typical leiomyoma but it is found in the lungs of women with a history of typical uterine leiomyomas." A recent article states "Because of the hormone-sensitive characteristics of BML, treatments are based on hormonal manipulation along with either surgical or medical oophorectomy." Tamoxifen treatment is in keeping with the BML diagnosis.

2016
20160053

MP/H Rules/Histology: How is the histology coded for an invasive adenocarcinoma arising in a papilloma with high-grade dysplasia? See Discussion.

Patient has a perihilar bile duct primary with a microscopic focus of invasive moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma arising in a large papilloma. The MP/H Rules do not address adenocarcinomas arising in a papilloma, only adenocarcinomas arising in an adenoma (or polyp). Should the histology be coded as 8140 for the invasive adenocarcinoma component? Or should the matrix principle be applied and the histology coded as a malignant glandular papilloma (8260/3)?

Assign 8503/3 for invasive adenocarcinoma arising in a papilloma with high-grade dysplasia, perihilar bile duct primary. Neither ICD-O-3 nor the WHO classification have a code for this specific histology; however, our expert pathologist consultant states 8503/3 is the best available choice based on pages 264 and 273 in the WHO Digestive system classification.

2016
20160009

MP/H Rules/Histology--Appendix: What is the histology for an appendix resection diagnosis of "Malignant neoplasm of the appendix with the following features: Histologic type: Adenocarcinoma ex goblet cell carcinoid with mucin production (adenocarcinoma arising from goblet cell carcinoid)"? Is this histology best coded to a mixed adenocarcinoma/carcinoid tumor (8244/3)?

Code histology to combined carcinoid and adenocarcinoma (8244/3). The tumor is a mix of adenocarcinoma and carcinoid.

2016
20160001

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries/Histology--Rectum: How many primaries does this person have and what is the correct histology? See discussion.

Rectal polyp excised in June, 2012, found to have adenocarcinoma in situ in a tubulovillous adenoma. Additional colorectal biopsies in November; all were negative. Another rectal polyp removed in December 2012 showing a tubulovillous adenoma with focal carcinoma in situ. Then, in February, 2013 another rectal polyp removed. This was diagnosed as mod. diff. adenocarcinoma with mucinous features, infiltrating into submucosa, seen in a background of tubulovillous adenoma. Surgical margins free (mucin %=40%). Finally, in May, 2013, a low anterior resection with no residual adenocarcinoma.

This appears to be adenocarcinoma in multiple adenomatous polyps (8221/3), although the final path from May 2013 described one benign polyp and said, 'no other masses, suspicious lesions or polyps are identified.' Going through the MP/H rules, both M13 and M14 result in this being a single primary, and come before the rule about an invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later is a new primary. The original abstract was coded C209 and 8263/2. If this is a single primary, should it be changed to 8221 with a behavior code of 3? Is this scenario another example of when to change the original diagnosis based on subsequent information?

Abstract a single primary and code as 8263/3. Other Sites rule M14 applies. The histology code is 8263/3 based on rules H28 and H12. Apply H28 first, make a second pass through the H rules and apply H12. See slide 18 in the "Beyond the Basics" presentation for applicable instructions on a similar situation, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/training_adv/SEER_MPH_Gen_Instruc_06152007.pdf

This case is an example of the need to update the original abstract based on more complete, subsequent, information.

2016
20160049

Grade/Sarcoma--Breast: Is the correct grade for high grade angiosarcoma of the breast a code 3 or 4? The breast usually uses a three grade system but sarcoma is not a typical histologic type of the breast.

Assign grade code 4 using the sarcoma table. Nottingham or Bloom-Richardson (BR) Score/Grade does not apply to angiosarcomas. This is a good question and points out needed clarification of the grade rules.

2016
20160030

Reportability--Carcinoid: Is a diagnosis of carcinoid heart disease, based solely on clinical information and no pathology, reportable?

Carcinoid heart disease is not reportable but this diagnosis indicates that the patient likely has a carcinoid tumor which may be reportable. Obtain further information.

2016
20160070

Primary site/MP/H Rules/Histology: What is the appropriate site and histology code for a tumor described as a "Large mass In suprasellar cistern encroaching into sphenoid & ethmoid sinuses", with the pathology described as "INI-1 deficient sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma"? Of note, this patient has a history of a pituitary adenoma, resected overseas a few months prior to this diagnosis.

The primary site is unclear. The lesion is intracranial, but this may not be the primary site. In the absence of any additional information, assign C390, 8020/3. According to WHO, sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma can involve the nasal cavity, maxillary antrum, and/or ethmoid sinus.

SMARCB1 (INI-1) is a tumor-suppressor gene located on chromosome 22q11.2. Tumors that showed loss of expression were SMARCB1-deficient tumors which are characterized by nests, sheets, and cords of cells without any histologic evidence of specific (eg, squamous or glandular) differentiation.

2016
20150044

Reportability--Ovary: Is micropapillary serous carcinoma (MPSC) of the ovary reportable? What are the differences between “noninvasive" and “low malignant potential?"  See discussion.

Pathology report reads left ovary: noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC), fragmented; right ovarian excrescence and posterior cul-de-sac: noninvasive implants identified; right ovary: noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC), scattered autoimplants (noninvasive); tumor is present on ovarian surface, noninvasive autoimplants

Noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC) of the ovary is reportable. Assign code 8460/2, applying the ICD-O-3 matrix concept to this noninvasive carcinoma. Noninvasive can be used as a synonym for in situ, ICD-O-3 behavior code /2. See page 66 in the softcover ICD-O-3. Low malignant potential (LMP) means that the neoplasm is not malignant, but has some chance of behaving in a malignant fashion. LMP can be used as a synonym for ICD-O-3 behavior code /1, see page 66.

2015
20150011

Surgery Primary Site--Breast: Please clarify how to code both simple mastectomy with tissue expander and AlloDerm reconstruction, and simple mastectomy with tissue expander (NOS). See discussion.

There are multiple SEER Notes in the Breast Surgery Codes of Appendix C instructing us to code tissue expanders as reconstruction but none address the type of reconstruction to be coded.

1. Is a tissue expander always equivalent to Implant reconstruction?

2. Is AlloDerm always equivalent to Tissue reconstruction?

3. Is the combination of AlloDerm and tissue expander always equivalent to Combined (tissue and implant) reconstruction?

Do not code AlloDerm as either a tissue or implant reconstruction, it is a graft material that usually accompanies implant reconstruction. Placement of a tissue expander is an indication of planned reconstruction. Additional information is needed to determine whether the reconstruction involves tissue or implant.

1. A tissue expander is not always equivalent to Implant reconstruction

2. AlloDerm is not equivalent to tissue reconstruction

3. The combination of AlloDerm and tissue expander is not equivalent to combined (tissue and implant) reconstruction

2015