Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20180064 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Recurrence--Breast: Does any recurrence within the multiple primaries-stated timeframe count, not those just in the primary site? See Discussion. |
A patient has a left breast cancer diagnosed in 2011; then has a "recurrence" in her lymph nodes in 2017. In 2018, she has a new left breast mass that is the same histology and behavior as the 2011 cancer. Based on the 2017 "recurrence" in the lymph nodes, this is not a new breast primary, is that correct? |
This is a single primary using 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rule M11. Rule M8 does not apply because the patient was not clinically disease free for 5 years. We are interpreting the 2017 diagnosis as lymph node metastasis from the 2011 breast cancer diagnosis. |
2018 |
|
|
20120024 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How many primaries are abstracted and what histology codes are used when a patient has two tumors, one reported as duct and lobular carcinoma and another reported as pleomorphic lobular and duct carcinoma? See Discussion. |
The pathology report indicated two tumors in the upper outer quadrant of the breast. One tumor has duct and lobular carcinoma and the other tumor has pleomorphic lobular and duct carcinoma. Per a web search, pleomorphic lobular carcinoma is a recently recognized subtype of lobular cancer. According to the MP/H Rules, Breast Equivalent Terms, Definitions, Tables and Illustrations, "pleomorphic carcinoma" is a specific type of duct carcinoma [8022/3]. This is not listed as a combined histology in Table 3. Should this be abstracted as a single primary per Rule M10, with the histology coded 8523/3 [infiltrating duct mixed with other types of carcinoma]? Or should this be abstracted as two primaries per Rule M12, with the histologies coded as 8022/3 [pleomorphic carcinoma] and 8522/3 [infiltrating duct and infiltrating lobular carcinoma]? |
This is a single primary with the histology coded as infiltrating duct and infiltrating lobular carcinoma [8522/3]. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the steps used to arrive at this decision are: Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a breast primary, start with the Breast Multiple Primary Rules because there are site specific rules for breast primaries. Start at Rule M4 because this patient has multiple tumors in the same breast. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the applicable Module. Abstract a single primary as tumors that are lobular [8520] and intraductal or duct are a single primary. Use the Breast Histology Coding Rules to determine the correct histology for these multiple tumors abstracted as a single primary. Start at Rule H20 as there were multiple tumors present but it is a single primary. Code the histology to 8522 [duct and lobular] when there is any combination of lobular [8520] and duct carcinoma. The Note for Rule M10 indicates Table 1 and Table 2 are used to identify specific intraductal and duct carcinomas. Referring to Table 2 (Duct 8500/3 and Specific Duct Carcinomas) note that pleomorphic carcinoma is listed as a specific type of duct carcinoma. Pleomorphic is a word that describes the cellular appearance rather than a specific histology. It is coded when that is the only description/diagnosis given (pleomorphic carcinoma/pleomorphic duct carcinoma). In this case, both duct and lobular are describing the actual histologic types. Ignore the term "pleomorphic" and code the actual histologic descriptors, ductal and lobular. We will make appropriate changes to the breast rules in the MP/H revisions so this distinction is clear. |
2012 |
|
|
20110050 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries: How many primaries are to be abstracted when a patient was initially diagnosed with epithelioid sarcoma in 2003, underwent multiple resections, radiation, and ultimately partial amputation of the limb in 2010, each with margins positive for residual epithelioid sarcoma? See Discussion. |
In Dec. 2003 a patient was diagnosed with epithelioid sarcoma of the left palm. In Jan. 2004 the patient had an excision with skin graft and positive margins. Amputation was recommended but the patient chose radiation instead. In May 2006 the patient had a local excision positive for epithelioid sarcoma followed by an amputation of the thumb and index finger with positive margins. Then in April 2010, the patient had an amputation of the remnant of left hand up to the middle third of the forearm. Again, there was residual distal invasive tumor positive for epithelioid sarcoma. |
This is a single primary, epithelioid sarcoma of the left upper limb, diagnosed in 2003. The sarcoma progressed over the years and the patient was never free of disease -- positive margins were documented at each surgical event. Per the 2004 SEER Manual coding rules in place at the time of pre-2007 recurrences, they would not be multiple primaries according to Rule 5, exception 1. The occurrence in 2010 is also not a new primary. The steps used to arrive at this decision are as follows. Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a soft tissue primary, use one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Other Sites MP rules to determine the number of primaries because soft tissue primaries do not have site specific rules. Start with the UNKNOWN IF SINGLE OR MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module that applies for this case. In this module there is only one rule. . This patient was never disease free and it is unknown if this tumor was the same tumor (single tumor) or multiple tumors. Abstract a single primary for this patient. |
2011 |
|
|
20120033 | Multiple Primaries--Hematopoietic: How many primaries are abstracted when a patient is diagnosed with essential thrombocythemia in 2007 and a bone marrow biopsy performed on 12/4/2009 shows primary myelofibrosis? See Discussion. |
The patient was diagnosed with essential thrombocythemia in 2007 and was treated with Hydrea. The 2009 bone marrow biopsy showed primary myelofibrosis which the physician states is a transition from the essential thrombocythemia. The Heme DB calls this two primaries. |
This is a single primary, essential thrombocythemia [9962/3] diagnosed in 2007. The 2010 Heme DB and Manual should not have been used to determine the number of primaries in this case. The Heme DB applies only to cases diagnosed 2010 and later. In order to determine the number of primaries, use the rules in place at the time of the subsequent 2009 diagnosis of primary myelofibrosis. Per the Single Versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table, a diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia [9962/3] followed by a diagnosis of primary myelofibrosis [9961/3] is a single primary. |
2012 |
|
|
20120010 | Multiple primaries/Behavior--Ovary: What is the diagnosis date and histology for the primary(ies) abstracted for a patient with a mucinous cystic borderline tumor of the ovary in 2003 and a metastatic ovarian adenocarcinoma in 2011? See Discussion. | The 2011 pathology report: Spine at L3 biopsy: metastatic adenocarcinoma. Per addendum: Prior total abdominal hysterectomy specimen from 2003 was reviewed and showed an ovarian mucinous cystic tumor of borderline malignancy which has a similar morphology to the invasive adenocarcinoma seen on current specimen.
Abdominal tissue and omental biopsy: invasive and non-invasive glandular implants compatible with origin from ovarian mucinous borderline tumor.
The final diagnosis per radiation oncologist was, "recurrent ovarian cancer." |
This is a single primary. The diagnosis date is coded to 2003 and the histology is mucinous cystadenocarcinoma [8470/3]. The bone, abdominal tissue and omentum are metastatic sites. The MP/H Rules do not apply to metastases.
This is a case where an invasive or microinvasive element was missed in the original pathology. Because the entire tumor was not sectioned and placed on slides, the pathologist used their expertise when sectioning and selecting tissue to be examined. It is not a matter of poor judgment, just a fact that it is impossible to review the tissue from the entire tumor. The behavior must be changed to malignant [/3]. |
2012 |
|
|
20110077 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be reported if different recurrence scores are found on the Oncotype Dx studies performed for multiple tumors in the same breast if the clinician states the patient has two primaries but the pathologist does not address the issue? See Discussion. | A patient has two separate lesions in the same quadrant with the same histology. According to the MP/H rules this is a single primary. However, Oncotype Dx studies were performed on both tumors and the DX recurrence was different for each tumor. The medical oncologist states the patient has two primaries. The pathologist does not indicate the number of primaries. | This is a single primary. The only rules used to determine the number of primaries are the MP/H rules for cases diagnosed 2007 or later. Do not use other information such as Oncotype Dx to determine the number of primaries for a patient. Oncotype is used to determine whether the cancer is likely to recur AND whether the cancer would benefit from chemotherapy.
The steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. Once in the manual, locate the Breast MP rules under one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text).
Start with the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M4. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module from Rule M4 to Rule M13. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.
The patient has two tumors in the same breast with the same histology. Abstract a single primary for this patient. |
2011 |
|
|
20210029 | Multiple primaries--Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a patient with peripheral blood initially showing chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), lymph node biopsy showing granulocytic sarcoma (9930/3), and bone marrow biopsy showing acute myeloid leukemia (AML) one or two primaries? See Discussion. |
1. 12/11/2020 Peripheral blood revealing what was thought to be chronic myelogenous leukemia BCR/ABL1 positive (9875/3). Patient was started on Hydrea while waiting for further tests on 12/12/2020. 2. 12/14/2020 Lymph node biopsy showed granulocytic sarcoma (9930/3), but flow cytometry states it is similar to that seen in the patient's peripheral blood and is consistent with nodal involvement by myeloblasts. 3. 12/15/2020 Bone marrow biopsy reads acute myeloid leukemia (9861/3), likely arising from BCR/ABL1 positive chronic myeloid leukemia. There is a note on this pathology from medical oncologist that says: This will dramatically change the course of his treatment, likely with a TKI. 4. 12/17/2020 Sprycel started. Patient was weaned off Hydrea. According to Rule M3, abstract a single primary when a sarcoma is diagnosed simultaneously or after a leukemia of the same lineage. It lists 9930/3 when simultaneously (or after) with 9861/3. Technically, it was two days before, but I feel like I should and could count that as simultaneously because of Note 1 that says: These sarcomas are solid manifestations of the associated leukemia. For example, when acute myeloid leukemia and myeloid sarcoma are diagnosed simultaneously, the myeloid sarcoma is the result of myeloid cells migrating from the bone marrow or blood into tissue. It is part of the disease process for the acute leukemia. Also, the providers never mention granulocytic sarcoma Based on that, I think that #2 & #3 above are the same primary, which would be acute myeloid leukemia (9861/3). Per the hematopoietic database, 9875/3 transforms to 9861/3. Therefore, Rule M8 is confusing with the "only one" biopsy. Does this rule apply because the 9875/3 was from peripheral blood only? But peripheral blood is coded in Diagnostic Confirmation as histology. Rule M9 reads: The two diagnoses are likely the result of an ongoing diagnostic work-up. The later diagnosis is usually based on all of the test results and correlated with any clinical information. Because that is truly what I think is happening here though that rule states there is no available documentation. If you do not have any documentation, how would you know you are dealing with a chronic and an acute diagnosis? M10 does not apply. According to Rule M11, abstract as multiple primaries when both a chronic and an acute neoplasm are diagnosed simultaneously or within 21 days and there is documentation of two biopsies. The chronic myelogenous leukemia only had peripheral blood and not a bone marrow, lymph node or tissue, but that is counted as positive histology in diagnostic confirmation, but I don't know if that is kept as a separate field/thought. I would not code a peripheral blood smear as with a surgical code or a surgical diagnostic and staging procedure code, so maybe that is what I should be thinking about and therefore would probably say Rule M8 and one primary. |
This is one primary based on Rule M3. Abstract as a single primary site for the granulocytic sarcoma and AML since they are both evaluating the blood/bone marrow, which are counted as one site. To count them twice would result in over counting primaries. For Rule M9: This would not apply to your situation since you do have information on both the CML and the AML. We had to write in this rule for cases where you do not always have the information available. In terms of the peripheral blood versus actually biopsy: In this case, do not count the peripheral blood as a separate site. Rule M8 does fit your case, coding this as the AML and having this as one primary. |
2021 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20100011 | Reportability: Should a benign gangliocytic paraganglioma [8683/0] be a reportable (malignant) tumor based on the presence of lymph node metastases? See Discussion. |
"Resection, periampullary duodenum: Gangliocytic paraganglioma, with metastasis to one large periduodunal lymph node. Six other small lymph nodes negative. COMMENT: The primary tumor in the duodenum is made up mainly endocrine cell component. This component appears to have metastasized to a periduodenal lymph node." |
This neoplasm is reportable because it is malignant as proven by the lymph node metastases. Code the behavior as malignant (/3) when there are lymph node metastases. |
2010 |
|
|
20071015 | CS Lymph Nodes/CS Mets at Dx--Melanoma: How are these fields coded if a sentinel lymph node biopsy reveals no malignancy but there is an aggregate of melanoma cells in the lumen of a large vein immediately adjacent to the lymph nodes? | This question was answered by the CoC:
Do not count this as regional metastatic disease since there is no evidence it is an established tumor. Stage this as a N0. |
2007 |
An official website of the United States government
