Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20071106 | MP/H Rules--Bladder: Does rule M6 mean that any combination of tumors with the histologies 8050, 8120-8124, or 8130-8131 are the same primary regardless of the amount of time between tumor occurrences? See Discussion. |
Many interpret Rule M7 to mean when separate occurrences of TCC of the bladder are diagnosed more than 3 years apart, it is reportable as a second primary. However, doesn't Rule M6 mean that if the histology is any combination of 8050, 8120-8124 or 8130-8131 for tumors diagnosed more than 3 years apart, they are reported as a single primary? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Papillary, transitional cell and/or papillary transitional cell carcinomas of the bladder are a single primary using Rule M6. Rule M6 includes diagnoses within 3 years of each other AND diagnoses more than three years apart for the histologies listed. If rule M6 applies to your case, stop. Do not continue on to Rule M7. |
2007 |
|
|
20081110 | MP/H Rules--Breast: Is a ductal carcinoma diagnosed in August, 2008 following a lobular-ductal primary diagnosed in February 2007 a new primary? See Discussion. |
Patient has two right breast tumors excised in February, 2007. One is lobular and the other ductal - abstracted as single primary per rule M10. Patient presents with new right breast tumor in August, 2008. This is a ductal carcinoma stated to be a recurrence. Would we again stop at M10 (single primary) or continue on to M12 and make this a new primary (difference at third number)? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Stop at rule M10 -- this is the first rule that applies. The 2008 diagnosis is not a new primary. |
2008 |
|
|
20081106 | MP/H Rules--Breast: How many primaries for the following? Breast lumpectomy: Three foci of invasive ductal carcinoma. Tumor nodule #1 - Invasive ductal carcinoma. Tumor nodule #2 - Invasive ductal carcinoma with tubular features. Tumor nodule #3 - Invasive tubular carcinoma. See Discussion. |
According to the MP/H rules, this case is reportable as three primaries with histologies coded 8500, 8523 and 8211. However, our QC staff is having a problem accepting this. When the pathologist specifies that a ductal carcinoma has tubular features or is tubular type, isn't s/he saying that tubular is a type of duct? In addition, the first line of the FDx states, "Three foci of ductal carcinoma," which indicates that the pathologists interprets the three nodules to be ductal carcinoma. |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: These three tumors are three separate primaries. Rule M12 applies. According to the 2007 MP/H rules, tubular carcinoma is not a type of duct carcinoma. Among the paramount reasons for writing the MP/H rules are the non-standard usage of nomenclature by physicians and the inconsistency in interpretation of these non-standard phrases. The MP/H rules must be applied consistently by each cancer registrar in order for data to be comparable across registries. |
2008 |
|
|
20100006 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Kidney: In a patient with a history of renal cell carcinoma, would a new primary be accessioned per Rule M10 for a soft tissue mass in the renal fossa not stated to be a metastasis but that was referred to as recurrent renal cell carcinoma, clear cell per the excision pathology report? See Discussion. |
This patient was diagnosed with clear cell carcinoma of the right kidney in 2003, treated with nephrectomy. The tumor was limited to the kidney. An FNA of the pancreas in 11/07 was consistent with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. In 2009 the patient was diagnosed with a right renal fossa mass by CT. The mass was excised on 8/26/09 and showed, "recurrent renal cell ca, clear cell." The path specimen was labeled as, "soft tissue, rt renal fossa." The original 2003 slides were not reviewed and the renal fossa mass was not described as being metastatic. If the renal fossa soft tissue mass is a new tumor, the MP/H rules for Other Sites directs you to code it as a new primary per rule M10 [Tumors diagnosed more than one (1) year apart are multiple primaries]. Would this be a new soft tissue tumor per rule M10? Or would this be a recurrence of the original kidney primary? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: This is not a new primary. The patient has metastatic disease from the 2003 kidney primary. Clear cell carcinoma metastasized to the pancreas in 2007 and to the right renal fossa in 2009. |
2010 |
|
|
20091025 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: How should we handle urinary tract tumors diagnosed before the MP rules went into effect when determining the number of primaries to report primaries? How do you apply rules M5, M6 and M8 when an invasive bladder tumor and other urinary site tumors occur before and after the effective date of these rules? See Discussion. |
Example: Patient with a prior in situ carcinoma of the bladder in 11/89, left ureter papillary transition cell carcinoma in situ diagnosed in 5/05, left renal pelvis papillary transition cell carcinoma in situ diagnosed in 8/07 and invasive bladder carcinoma diagnosed in 3/08. When an invasive bladder tumor and other urinary site tumors occur, do you stop with the bladder at rule M5 and M6 never reaching M8? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Use the 2007 MP/H rules for urinary sites to assess diagnoses made in 2007-2014. Use the multiple tumors module to compare a diagnosis in 2007-2014 to an earlier diagnosis. For the example above, start by comparing the left renal pelvis diagnosis in 8/07 to the earlier left ureter primary diagnosed 5/05. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M8. The 8/07 renal pelvis diagnosis is not a new primary. Next, compare the 3/08 bladder tumor to the earlier left ureter primary diagnosed 5/05. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M5. The 3/08 bladder tumor is a new primary because it is an invasive diagnosis following an in situ diagnosis. Use only the more recent of the two earlier urinary diagnoses for comparison. Do not compare the 2007 and later diagnoses to the 11/89 in situ bladder primary in this case. |
2009 |
|
|
20091024 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: Are diagnoses in bladder, ureter, renal pelvis, and other urinary made prior to 2007 used in determining multiple primaries? See Discussion. |
Per the General Information for MPH, Rule #3, the rules are effective for cases diagnosed January 1, 2007 and after. Do not use these rules to abstract cases diagnosed prior to January 1, 2007. Example: Is a 2006 diagnosis of a renal pelvis primary with the histology 8130/3 and a 2007 diagnosis of a bladder primary with histology 8130/3 "multiple tumors" or is the bladder tumor a new primary because it is a single tumor at the time of diagnosis in 2007? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Use the 2007 MP/H rules for urinary sites to assess tumors diagnosed in 2007 or later. For the example above, use the 2007 rules to determine whether or not the bladder tumor diagnosed in 2007 is a new primary. Use the Multiple Tumors module when comparing a 2007 or later diagnosis to an earlier diagnosis. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M8. The 2007 bladder urothelial tumor is not a new primary since there is an existing 2006 renal pelvis urothelial primary. |
2009 |
|
|
20010026 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Prostate: What code is used to represent the histology "adenocarcinoma, microacinar type"? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Assign code 8140 [adenocarcinoma, NOS]. See the MP/H rules for Other Sites, histology coding rule H10. |
2001 | |
|
|
20020012 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology "ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive lobular carcinoma"? See discussion. | Is the histology coded to the combination code of 8522/3 (ductal and lobular) or to the invasive component 8520/3 (lobular)? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Assuming ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive lobular carcinoma are present in a single tumor, code 8520/3 [Infiltrating lobular carcinoma, NOS]. Using the 2007 MP/H rules for breast, the single tumor invasive and in situ carcinoma module, start and stop at rule H9 and code the invasive histology. |
2002 |
|
|
20081100 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Rectum: When not specifically mentioned as part of the histology, is the adenoma a second histologic type, or just a further physical description of the tumor? See Discussion. |
Rectal tumor resection (APR) path report final dx: "mucinous carcinoma, see comment". The comment is the CAP-format tumor summary, which states "histologic type: adenocarcinoma with extensive mucin production (mucinous or colloid carcinoma). Additional pathologic findings: adenomas - tumor arises in a tubulovillous adenoma". If you follow the rules and only use the final dx, you would code a different histology than if you use the 'additional path findings.' |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later Other Sites histology rule H12 applies in this case. Assign histology code 8263 [adenocarcinoma in tubulovillous adenoma]. Use information from the CAP protocol and from comments associated with the final diagnosis to code histology. The fact that the malignancy arose in a polyp can be taken from anywhere in the medical record; not limited to the final diagnosis. Based on the information provided for this case, the histology is adenocarcinoma with extensive mucin production (mucinous or colloid carcinoma) arising in a tubulovillous adenoma. |
2008 |
|
|
20081126 | MP/H Rules--Brain and CNS: Are stigmata of neurofibromatosis in the brain reportable neurofibromatosis lesions? See Discussion. |
Reference: SINQ 20051108; SINQ 20061018 Three year old patient with history of neurofibromatosis 1. 3/05 MRI of the brain showed right optic nerve glioma. It also showed heterogeneous high t2 signal in the middle cerebellar peduncles and near the genu of the internal capsules bilaterally are stigmata of neurofibromatosis type I. 3/08 MRI showed new mass suspicious for glioma in the hypothalamus. Clinical diagnosis is benign glioma secondary to diagnosis of neurofibromatosis. How many primaries are to be accessioned for this patient? Should the matrix principle be invoked for the second glioma? Should the behavior code for the glioma be 0? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 through 2017 Accession NF (9540/1) when there is CNS tumor -- a glioma or some other intracranial/intraspinal tumor. Stigmata of NF are reportable when the stigmata themselves are reportable tumors. For example, glioma, or another intracranial/intraspinal tumor. Do not report sitgmata that are only termed "stigmata seen on MRI," for example, without other reportable terminology. Do NOT accession NF (9540/1) when there is only peripheral nerve/nervous system involvement. Accession the neurofibromatosis itself only once per patient. Accession any initial neoplasm in the CNS separately. Abstract and code any subsequent CNS neoplasms according to the multiple primary brain rules. Accession three primaries for the case described above.
--> Optic nerve gliomas associated with NF are pilocytic astrocytomas. Code pilocytic astrocytoma as 9421/3 in North America. For cases diagnosed 2018 or later See the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules for Non-Malignant CNS tumors. |
2008 |
An official website of the United States government
