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: 10/08/2026 02:22 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20071111 MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How many primaries should be abstracted when a patient has an adenocarcinoma with bronchioalveolar-like features in the right upper lobe, adenocarcinoma in the right middle lobe and non-small cell carcinoma with clear cell features in the right lower lobe? See Discussion.

A RUL lung wedge resection and RML and RLL lobectomies were performed. The RUL resection showed invasive adenocarcinoma with bronchioalveolar-like features. Tumor size 9x.9x.8cm. The RLL lobectomy showed invasive non-small cell carcinoma with clear cell features. Tumor size 4.1x2.5x1.8cm. The RML lobectomy showed invasive adenocarcinoma. Tumor size 3.0x1.6x2.2cm.

Comment: Essentially three invasive tumors and a focus of bronchioalveolar carcinoma were identified in 3 specimens. All of the tumors appear somewhat histologically different. The larger tumors in the right upper and middle lobe were somewhat similar but still appear histologically different and therefore the pathologic staging is done based on all tumors being separate. The pathologic staging for this case is pT2(4) pN0 pMX.

What histology code and what site code are to be used on each abstract?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Abstract two primaries:

  1. C349 with histology coded to 8140 - invasive adenocarcinoma (RUL and RML)

  • C343 with histology coded to 8310 - invasive non-small cell carcinoma with clear cell features (RLL)

    • First, determine the number of tumors. There are three separate tumors in right lung in the example above:

    • RUL: invasive adenocarcinoma, bronchioalveolar-like features (8140, "-like" is not on the list of ambiguous terms used to code histology)

  • RLL: invasive non-small cell carcinoma with clear cell features (8310)

  • RML: invasive adenocarcinoma (8140)

    • Because there are three tumors, begin with rule M3 in the Multiple Tumors module. Stop at rule M11, multiple primaries for the tumor in the RLL (8310) compared to the tumors in the RUL and RML (8140 and 8140).

    Now evaluate the tumors in the RUL and RML using the multiple primary rules. Start at rule M3 and stop at rule M12, single primary.

    		 Lung N/A 2007
    		20031072

    EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: Is extracapsular extension implied by the phrase "tumor invades the fibrous tissue of the capsule"? See Description.

    The physician staged to a pathology stage of T3. It appears the physician regards the following pathology statement to be equivalent to capsular invasion on the right side: "Tumor invades the fibrous tissue of the capsule on the right side where it approaches to within 1 mm. of the surgical margin." Should pathologic extension be coded to 42[unilateral extracapsular extension]?

    Use the best information available to stage the case. In this case, the best information is the pathologist's description of the tumor extension rather than the AJCC stage.

    For cases diagnosed 1995-2003: Extracapsular extension is not implied by the phrase in the question. Code the capsular involvement described to 32 [invasion into but not beyond the prostatic capsule] on the basis of the pathology report.

    		 Prostate N/A 2003
    		20081056 MP/H Rules--Lung: In reference to lung, SINQ 20071028 states "'nodule' is not an equivalent term for tumor, mass, lesion, or neoplasm." However, slide 5 for the MPH lung section of "Beyond the Basics" states "we use the words 'mass, nodule and lesion' interchangeably." Which is it?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    For the purpose of applying the Lung MP/H rules, the word "Nodule" can be used interchageably with "Tumor," "Mass," "Lesion" and "Neoplasm." HOWEVER, this does NOT apply to casefinding or staging.

    This revision will be added to the next version of the MP/H rules. Sinq question 20071028 will be revised.

    		 Lung N/A 2008
    		20140049

    Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is Tuberculum sellae meningioma reportable? Is it same as sphenoidale meningioma?

    Path: Brain tuberculum tumor resection: Meningioma, WHO grade I.

    Revised answer based on ST rules

    Yes, a Tuberculum sella meningioma is reportable if diagnosed 2004 or later. Code the primary site C700, cerebral meninges. It is a meningioma originating from the meninges of the Tuberculum sellae, which is part of the sphenoid bone.

    		 Brain and CNS N/A 2014
    		20081079 Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Kidney: Is a case reportable if a biopsy diagnosis of "suggestive of oncocytoma, malignant neoplasm cannot be excluded" follows a CT scan that was read as "suspicious for carcinoma"? See Discussion. Pt is nursing home resident. CT abdomen/pelvis shows a "mass in the right kidney, highly suspicious for renal cell carcinoma". CT-guided needle biopsy performed with final diagnosis: "Neoplasm suggestive of oncocytoma. A malignant neoplasm cannot be excluded." No other information is available. This case is not reportable based on the information provided. The suspicious CT finding was biopsied and not proven to be malignant. "Suggestive of" is not a reportable ambiguous term. Kidney, renal pelvis N/A 2008
    		20021165 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--All Sites: Is there a hierarchy for using information from clinical tests (scans, radiography) to determine clinical tumor size? When the size on a radiographic report prior to pathologic diagnosis is smaller than the size of the tumor on the radiographic report that is post pathologic diagnosis, which tumor size should be used? See discussion.

    Which size should be used for these examples?

    1) Tumor size on a mammogram is smaller than the tumor size on an ultrasound.

    2) CT of the lung reveals a 2.5 cm RUL malignancy in June. A biopsy in July confirms a malignancy. A CT is done in August prior to initiating RT which reveals a 3.1 cm RUL nodule.

    For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

    Generally, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to the largest size identified in any scan. Use the largest tumor size for most cases. There is no hierarchy for multiple imaging studies, with the exception of the two situations represented in the question examples.

    1). Code the size stated on the mammogram, even if that size is smaller than the one specified on the ultrasound. Generally the mammogram size is more accurate for breast cases than ultrasound.

    2). Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 2.5 cm. In this example, the second scan was the same type as the first. Usually there is not that much of a difference in size between the same tests, unless the tumor has an aggressive histology. The example does not mention the histology. With certain histologies, such as small cell of the lung, a rapid growth in a short amount of time is the normal process. The fact that the size increased that much in a short period of time, using the same type of scan, is an indication of a rapidly growing tumor. It would be better to use the size on the initial scan to code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor.

    		 N/A N/A 2002
    		20170080

    Reportability/Breast: Is lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) reportable? The eighth edition, American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual does not stage LCIS.

    Yes, LCIS is reportable. Staging does not determine reportability. Follow the reportability requirements of your state and national standard setter. SEER reportability requirements are found in the SEER manual starting on page 5, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2016/SPCSM_2016_maindoc.pdf

    		 Breast N/A 2017
    		20190061

    Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be reported for a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) on core biopsy of the right breast in 2016 with all treatment refused, followed by a 2019 large right breast mass ulcerating the skin and clinical diagnosis of invasive breast cancer (patient again refused all treatment)? See Discussion.

    The patient was never treated for the 2016 diagnosis, so the 2019 diagnosis is the same tumor that has progressed. Prior SINQ 20091096 for a similar case type cited multiple primaries per the 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules, Rule M8, the same rule as the current Solid Tumor rule M17, because this is to be reported as an incidence case.

    However, it seems like Solid Tumor Rule M3 would apply because a single tumor is a single primary, and behavior of the 2016 primary would then be updated from /2 to /3. It is unclear how one would advance to the Multiple Tumors module and apply M17 because there is really only a single tumor in this case.

    Since the first diagnosis is in situ, and the later diagnosis is invasive, the 2019 diagnosis is a new primary even though it may be the same non-treated tumor.

    For cases diagnosed 2018 and later, abstract multiple primaries according to the 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M17 that states

    Abstract multiple primaries when an invasive tumor occurs more than 60 days after an in situ tumor in the same breast.

    Note 1: The rules are hierarchical. Only use this rule when none of the previous rules apply.

    Note 2: Abstract both the invasive and in situ tumors.

    Note 3: Abstract as multiple primaries even if physician states the invasive tumor is disease recurrence or progression.

    Note 4: This rule is based on long-term epidemiologic studies of recurrence intervals. The specialty medical experts (SMEs) reviewed and approved these rules. Many of the SMEs were also authors, co-authors, or editors of the AJCC Staging Manual.

    		 Breast N/A 2019
    		20190064

    Multiple Primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Patient is diagnosed with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) with an early/evolving acute myeloid leukemia (AML) thought to be treatment related. Does rule M11 apply since there are two biopsies within 21 days, and therefore, two primaries, or one primary (9920/3)? See Discussion.

    Patient has a history of breast cancer and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), both treated with chemotherapy and radiation.

    On 6/26/19, bone marrow biopsy: MDS with excess blasts-2 (18% dysplastic blasts) in a normocellular marrow (overall 40% cellularity) with trilineage dysplasia. Comment: least myelodysplastic syndrome with excess blasts-2. However, an early/evolving AML cannot be completely excluded. The findings likely represent therapy-related myeloid neoplasm.

    MD note on 7/15/19: Diagnosis: MDS, high grade borderline AML with complex karyotype secondary disease. Patient has high grade MDS which is bordering on AML transformation with 20% blasts by IHC and areas higher than this. This is likely secondary to the treatment she has received for her other cancers particularly pelvic radiation for her DLBCL. Given her very high IPSS score, it is likely she will eventually develop AML. No treatment given.

    On 7/15/19, bone marrow biopsy: Persistent acute leukemia in a marrow with trilineage dyspoiesis and 23% blasts.

    Code as one primary (9920/3). This case does not fit the rules very well, since it is a treatment-related neoplasm and involves a transformation of MDS to AML during the clinical workup. Per the abstractor notes for 9920/3, code 9920/3 when the physician comments that the neoplasm is treatment related. This can be for the MDS or the AML. Use text fields to document that it was first referred to as MDS and then transformed to AML. If you followed the rules strictly and coded this as two primaries (the MDS and AML), you would lose the information that this was treatment related, which is more important.

    		 Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms N/A 2019
    		20071068 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries/Histology--Prostate: How many primaries should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded for a case in which the pathology specimen showed adenocarcinoma in 20% of the tissue and sarcoma in 50% of the tissue? See Discussion.

    Patient has TURP. The final path diagnosis is adenocarcinoma in 20% of tissue and sarcoma in 50% of tissue.

    Because it is unknown whether there is a single or multiple tumors, rule M1 (Other Sites) is used which states the case is to be abstracted as a single primary.

    Single invasive histology rules are followed to rule H16, but table 2 does not contain a mixed code for this situation, even though ICD-O-3 has a code 8933/3 for "adenosarcoma". Therefore, rule H17 is applied that states to use the highest code, which in this case would be 8800/3 [Sarcoma, NOS]. Is this correct?

    For cases diagnosed 2007-2014, code as two primaries, one adenocarcinoma and the other sarcoma.

    This is two tumors (adenocarcinoma and separate sarcoma) until proven otherwise. Do not code as adenosarcoma, as this is a gyn-specific diagnosis. Adenosarcoma of the prostate is not a recognized entity in the WHO classification of prostate tumors.

    		 Prostate N/A 2007