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: 05/12/2026 08:23 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20140087

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Ampulla of vater: Is this a new primary? Patient has intramucosal adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma of the ampula of vater in Sept. of 2011. In May of 2012, patient has another ampullary adenoma with intraepithelial carcinoma (pTis) and an area suspicious for invasion. This is coded 8263/3.

Rule M14, Multiple in situ and/or malignant polyps are a single primary, precedes rule M15, An invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days after diagnosis is a multiple primary, per the MP rules for 'Other sites',

Rule M14 applies. Abstract this case as a single primary.

2014
20140074

Surgery of Primary Site--Brain and CNS: What procedure code would be used for NeuroBlate Laser Interstitial Thermal Therapy? This procedure was used for a Glioblastoma of the brain.

If a pathologic specimen is not taken during this procedure, code in the surgery field using code 10 (Local tumor destruction, NOS). If specimen is sent to pathology, code 90, surgery, NOS. We will request this procedure be included in future treatment field coding documentation.

Our research notes that this procedure, also known as LITT (Laser Interstitial Thermal Therapy), is a surgical treatment. Lasers transmit heat to coagulate or destroy the brain tumors from the inside out.

2014
20140062

MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: Does lung MP/H Rule M6 apply to synchronous tumors only, metachronous tumors only, or both? See discussion.

How many primaries should be reported when a patient has a history of RLL adenocarcinoma diagnosed on 10/8/2009 followed by diagnoses of LUL adenocarcinoma on 10/5/2012 and a RUL adenocarcinoma on 3/26/2014?

We applied Rule M6 to the 10/5/2012 diagnosis of LUL adenocarcinoma and reported an additional primary. However, we are unsure how to apply the MP/H rules for the 3/26/2014 RUL adenocarcinoma.

Should we apply Rule M8 because the RUL adenocarcinoma was diagnosed more than 3 years after the original RLL adenocarcinoma and then apply M6 because the RUL and LUL indicate a single tumor in each lung (resulting in a third primary); or does Rule M12 apply because there has been more than a single tumor in each lung (no new primary)?

Assuming each of the three diagnoses is a single tumor and there are no other tumors in either lung, abstract two primaries: 1 in the RLL diagnosed on 10/8/2009 and 1 in the LUL diagnosed on 10/5/2012. Do not abstract the 3/26/2014 diagnosis as a new primary.

Rule M6 applies to the 2009 and 2012 diagnoses. Rule M12 applies to the 2012 and 2014 diagnoses. Do not compare the 2014 diagnosis to the 2009 diagnosis. Always compare the latest diagnosis to the most recent previous diagnosis in cases like this.

2014
20140089

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the 2014 diagnosis be abstracted as a new primary since it is not mantle cell lymphoma and all of the types listed in the differential diagnosis would be a new primary? See discussion.

Mantle cell lymphoma diagnosed in 1997 which was treated with chemotherapy. Now in 2014 a 'relapse' of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. They do a biopsy of the pericardium, which is called low grade B cell non Hodgkin lymphoma. See comment. The comment says histochemical stains are reviewed and findings are consistent with involvement by a CD5 positive low grade B cell lymphoma. Lack of cyclin D1 and SOX-11 positivity as well as negative IGH-CCND1 FISH analysis essentially rule out mantle cell lymphoma. The morphologic and immunophenotypic features of this disorder are not specific for any lymphoma subtype. The differential includes CLL, marginal zone lymphoma, and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. If this is coded NHL, NOS (9591) it is the same primary as seq. 1 and would not be abstracted.

This is the same primary, the mantle cell lymphoma.

Differential diagnoses cannot be used to assign histology. For the 2014 diagnosis, the only histology that can be assigned is 9591/3 for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS. (CLL, mantle cell lymphoma and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma are all NHL's.)

Compare the 1997 diganosis of mantle cell lymphoma with the 2014 diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Start with Rule M1. The first rule that applies is Rule M15, which instructs you to use the multiple primaries calculator. Enter 9673/3 and then 9591/3 and then calculate. The result is same primary.

If at a later time one of the differential diagnoses is confirmed, apply the rules again.

 

 

 

 

2014
20140053

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is this abstracted as one primary or two?

5/2/13 Bone Marrow biopsy: myelodysplastic syndrome with approaching to acute myeloid leukemia with del 5q and 7q deletions. FISH: deletion of chromosome 5q and deletion of chromosome 7q detected.

I checked the Heme DB manual and there is no term "With approaching to". I checked the Multiple Primary calculator and it says new primary. My interpretation is that the myelodysplastic syndrome is in the process of transforming to acute myeloid leukemia.

Abstract a single primary, myelodysplastic syndrome with del 5q and 7q deletions (9986/3). This neoplasm can transform to acute myeloid leukemia (AML); however, "with approaching to" cannot be used to report this AML.

2014
20140006 Date Therapy Initiated--Corpus Uteri: How should this field be coded for an endometrial primary when the patient undergoes a hysteroscopic polypectomy on 01/08/2014 (Surgery code 25), followed by a TAH/BSO on 02/07/2014 (Surgery code 50)? See discussion. The hysteroscopic polypectomy showed multiple tissue fragments with invasive endometrioid adenocarcinoma. The hysterectomy and BSO removed an 8.2cm endometrioid carcinoma with no extra-uterine involvement. Record 01/08/2014 for date therapy initiated assuming there was no therapy prior to this date. A polypectomy is a surgical procedure for purposes of coding date therapy initiated. 2014
20140021 Reportability--Breast: Is an inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor of the breast with metastasis to the lung reportable? Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor of the breast with metastasis to the lung is reportable. Metastasis to the lung from the breast tumor indicates that the breast tumor is malignant. All malignant neoplasms are reportable. 2014
20140083

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Thyroid: How many primaries should be reported when a complete thyroidectomy specimen shows two tumors: 1.8 cm papillary carcinoma with tall cell features (8344/3) and a 0.4 cm papillary thyroid carcinoma (8260/3)? See discussion.

Is papillary thyroid carcinoma an NOS histology qualifying for rule M16, thus leading to a single primary, or would M17 apply (multiple primaries) because the histology codes are different at the second digit (8260 and 8344)? While rule M16 doesn't include papillary thyroid carcinoma in the listed histologies, it seems like it may be an NOS histology for the thyroid. In addition, code 8260/3 is listed as NOS in the ICD-O-3.

Apply rule M16 and abstract a single primary. These two thyroid tumors, one papillary carcinoma with tall cell features (8344/3) and one papillary thyroid carcinoma, fit the criteria for rule M16, although not explicity listed there. We will clarify this in the next version of the rules.

2014
20140033

Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Prostate: Can you clarify why a prostate biopsy diagnosis of “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” is not reportable while a biopsy diagnosis of “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable? See discussion.

SINQ 20091103 states that prostate biopsies showing “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” are NOT reportable. However, SINQ 20071056 states that “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable. This appears to be an issue of semantics with no clearly outlined method to determine reportability of such cases.

We have two recent cases with similar semantic issues and want to know whether they are reportable.

1) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation, highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma, with quality/quantity insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer.”

2) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma but due to the small size of focus, findings are not definitively diagnostic.”

Both case examples provided are reportable using instructions for ambiguous terminology. The diagnoses are qualified by the words "highly suspicious" because neither diagnosis is definitive ("insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer" and "not definitively diagnostic."). However, we follow our instructions for interpreting ambiguous terminology and report these cases.

SINQ 20091103 differs slightly. The final diagnosis in 20091103 declares unequivocally "not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma." That phrase in the final diagnosis negates the ambiguous terminology. The situation in 20071056 is similar to the two examples above - the ambiguous terminology instructions apply.

2014
20140080

Behavior--Breast: Is behavior for encapsulated papillary carcinoma (EPC) of the breast coded as noninvasive or invasive?

The pathologist has the final say on behavior. Code behavior based on the pathologist's final diagnosis. See Rule F in ICD-O-3.

According the WHO Classification of Breast Tumors, encapsulated papillary carcinoma of the breast is in situ, /2. Encapsulated papillary carcinoma with invasion is assigned /3. WHO describes "frank invasive carcinoma" for this histology as "neoplastic epithelial elements infiltrate beyond the fibrous capsule of encapsulated papillary carcinomas." WHO cautions that true infiltration should be "differentiated from entrapment of neoplastic epithelial cells in the fibrous capsule and from epithelial displacement into the biopsy site, which is frequently encountered following needle-core procedures of papillary lesions."

2014