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: 09/08/2025 15:13 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20100066 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be accessioned if two tumors are present in the same breast, a 1.7 cm colloid carcinoma and a 1.5 cm colloid carcinoma with infiltrating ductal carcinoma? See Discussion.

If a patient has two masses in the same breast with different histology codes and different sizes, should this be accessioned as two primaries? Or should this be a single primary based on the largest tumor size or numerically higher histology code?

  1. Size 1.7 cm for the largest tumor size, but histology is colloid carcinoma. Histology code: 8480/3.

  • Size: 1.5 cm with colloid with infiltrating ductal carcinoma. Histology code 8523/3.

    		•

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract this case as two primaries.

    Mucinous/colloid carcinoma of the breast is rare. The first tumor describes (1.7 cm) fits this criteria because the pathologist simply says mucinous carcinoma. The diagnostic criteria for mucinous carcinoma is that pools of extracellular mucin make up at least 1/3 of the volume throughout the tumor mass. If focal areas are not at least 33% mucinous, the designation is a mixed mucinous/ductal. That fits the second tumor (1.5 cm).

    For this case, you must get the histology codes for both tumors in order to use the Multiple Primary rules. Per H14 the first tumor is coded mucinous carcinoma [8480/3]. Per H17 the second tumor is coded duct carcinoma mixed with any other carcinoma [8523/3]. Now go to the MP rules. Per M12 abstract this case as multiple primaries because the ICD-O-3 histology codes are different at the second and third digit.

    		 2010
    		20091078 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Head & Neck: How many primaries should be reported when an invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the right mandibular body (C06.9) was diagnosed in 2004 (treated with surgery and radical neck dissection), and an invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the left buccal mucosa (C06.0) was diagnosed in 2007? See Discussion. According to the MP/H Rules, it appears Rule M12 would apply since none of the others fit and these would be a single primary.

    For cases diagnosed 2007-2014:

    Based on the information provided, the primary site code for the 2004 primary should be C031 [mandibular gingiva, lower alveolar mucosa, etc.].

    The 2007 diagnosis would be a separate primary according to rule M7 because the patient was disease free following treatment for the 2004 diagnosis. C031 and C060 are different at the third character.

    		 2009
    		20091060 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Head and Neck: How many primaries are to be accessioned for a case in which a second tumor occurs in an area previously involved by direct extension from a prior primary located in an adjacent site? See Discussion. Patient diagnosed in August 2007 with squamous cell carcinoma in the right tonsil. This tumor extended to the base of tongue. Treatment consisted of radiation and chemotherapy. In May 2008, the patient was found to have squamous cell carcinoma of the base of tongue. How many primaries are to be accessioned for this case? Rule M7 states that tumors in sites with ICD-O topography codes that are different at the second or third character are multiple primaries. The topography code for base of tongue differs from that of tonsil. Would rule M7 apply? On the other hand, the base of tongue was involved by the tonsil primary which was diagnosed less than one year before.

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    The May 2008 diagnosis is not a new primary. Base of tongue involvement was originally present in August 2007. The May 2008 diagnosis does not represent new tumor. The 2007 rules apply to new tumors only; therefore, the 2007 rules do not apply to this case.

    		 2009
    		20091108 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How do we apply the MP/H rules if a pathologist states a patient has multiple reportable primaries after he compares an October 2006 RLL lung specimen with a March 2009 RML lung specimen? See Discussion. Patient had a right lung lobectomy (RLL) in Oct. 2006 diagnosed as adenocarcinoma. In March of 2009, two nodules in the right upper lobe were identified. Following a RUL wedge resection, the pathology report indicated: Two foci of M.D. adenocarcinoma with mixed mucinous and micropapillary and solid patterns. COMMENT: The present tumor is compared to the previous adenocarcinoma reviewed in 2006. Although there is some overlap in their appearance, the present tumor shows a much greater component of mucinous adenocarcinoma. Because there is some difference in the appearance, and the nodule is located in a separate lobe, this will be dictated as a separate lung primary.

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is two primaries.

    MPH General Instructions tell us a pathologist may decide when there is recurrence when comparing the current tumor to a previous specimen. In this case, the pathologist did the comparison and documented that the second tumor is NOT a recurrence but a new primary.

    Histologies described by the terms "pattern" and "component" do not indicate a more specific type when applying the histology rules. The histology for the 2009 diagnosis is adenocarcinoma [8140/3]. Rule H3 applies.

    		2009
    		20071074 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many primaries should be reported when an "adenocarcinoma" is discovered in one of several new nodules at the scar in a lung and it is less than a year after a wedge resection for a diagnosis of "bronchioalveolar adenocarcinoma" in the same lung? See Discussion.

    In March 2006 patient diagnosed with bronchioalveolar adenocarcinoma [8250/3] and had wedge resection. In November 2006 a CT chest shows nodules at the scar suspicious for recurrence. In January, 2007, there was a biopsy of one of the nodules showing adenocarcinoma [8140/3].

    Is this part of the original disease process diagnosed in March 2006 or should it be abstracted as a new primary based on 2007 MP/H rules (histology is different at the first 3 digits)?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    Try to obtain more information/clarification on the 2007 diagnosis -- for example, is it metastasis?

    Based only on the information provided for this case, the 2007 diagnosis is a separate primary.

    Use the 2007 MP/H rules to assess the 2007 diagnosis. Begin with rule M3 in the multiple tumors section. Stop at rule M11, multiple primaries.

    		 2007
    		20071051 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: Please clarify the multiple primary rule M6 and the explanatory note that states when there is a single tumor in each lung, they are to be reported as multiple primaries unless stated or proven to be metastasis. See Discussion. Single tumor in left lung, single tumor in right lung. The rules take you to M6. Suppose the tumor in left lung is biopsied and there is a physician statement that right lung tumor is metastatic from left lung tumor. The note under M6 is "When there is a single tumor in each lung, abstract as multiple primaries unless stated or proven to be metastatic." In this case, is it a single primary or multiple primaries?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    When there is a single tumor in one lung and a single tumor in the other lung, apply rule M6 and abstract as multiple primaries. Use this rule whenever there is a single tumor in each lung, even when neither tumor is biopsied or resected.

    This rule is unique to lung. Our physician advisors emphasized that it is very unlikely that a single tumor in one lung could be metastatic from a single tumor in the opposite lung. Therefore, the default is to abstract as multiple primaries.

    The note at M6 means that there must be proof that one tumor is metastatic in order to abstract as a single primary. For example, a biopsy of the tumor proving that it is metastatic. An opinion or belief that one tumor is metastatic is not sufficient. In the absence of proof, use rule M6 and abstract as multiple primaries.

    A list of MP/H clarifications will be available. This issue will be included on the list.

    		 2007
    		20071040 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Melanoma: Is there a difference between multiple primary rules M6 and M7 because both rules state that tumors occurring more than 60 days apart are to be reported as multiple primaries? See Discussion.

    Rule M6 clearly states that an invasive melanoma occurring more than 60 days after an in situ melanoma is a multiple primary. However M7 states that any melanomas diagnosed more than 60 days apart are multiple primaries. Since M7 does not state malignant melanomas diagnosed more than 60 days apart, this implies that any scenario:

    in situ following an invasive,

    invasive following an in situ,

    in situ following an in situ,

    or invasive following an invasive

    are all multiple primaries if more than 60 days apart. If that is the intent of M7, then M6 is totally unnecessary. If the intent of M7 is only for an invasive following an invasive, then the word malignant needs to be inserted as the first word of rule M7.

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, M7 is intended to apply to in situ and invasive melanomas. Therefore, M6 and M7 are repetitive.

    This will be corrected when revisions are made to the MP/H rules. In the meantime, both M6 and M7 result in multiple primaries so it does not matter which rule is used.

    		 2007
    		20091030 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Thyroid: How many primaries should be coded if there is a clinical diagnosis of recurrent thyroid carcinoma in 3/08 in a patient with a history of thyroid carcinoma diagnosed in 1995 with a 2002 clinical recurrence? See Discussion. Thyroid carcinoma diagnosed in 11/95 and treated with total thyroidectomy (although path report only mentions the left lobe) and ablation. Elevated thyroglobulin level in 11/02, stated to have recurrent carcinoma and again treated with ablation. History on this case states patient had a near total thyroidectomy at diagnosis. Patient is seen again at a third hospital 3/08. Diagnosis again is recurrent carcinoma apparently because of a thyroid mass that is palpable. No treatment was performed and patient expired 4/08. Is this a new primary because of MP/H rule M10?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    The pathology report takes precedence over the other information when there is a discrepancy. Based on the information available, only the left thyroid lobe was removed 11/95.

    Use the 2007 MP/H rules to evaluate new tumors. If the 3/08 diagnosis represents a new tumor, use the MP/H rules. If the diagnosis in 3/08 is not new tumor, the MP/H rules do not apply.

    For this case, a new tumor in 3/08 would be a new primary using rule M10 for Other Sites.

    		 2009
    		20091018 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries/CS Extension: How many primaries are to be accessioned when tumors are present bilaterally in the pleura and fallopian tubes? See Discussion.

    For both pleura and fallopian tube, the MP/H rules indicate that bilateral involvement of these sites should be coded as multiple primaries. However, both of these sites have CS extension codes that classify the contralateral disease as regional extension.

    Is a case described as a left sided pleural mesothelioma that has right sided pleural disease coded as one or two primaries? How is CS coded?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    For a pleural or fallopian tube primary, if there is tumor(s) on the left and separate tumor(s) on the right and neither is stated to be metastatic from the other, abstract as multiple primaries according to rule M8 for other sites. If both sides are involved, but there is only one tumor, rule M2 for other sites applies and this is a single primary. Code each primary separately in CS.

    		 2009
    		20071077 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries/Histology--Colon: How many primaries should be reported and how is the histology field(s) coded if the left colon contains two adenocarcinomas and one mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in a villous adenoma and each has a different level of invasion? See Discussion. A patient had three tumors in the left colon including an 1) invasive well differentiated mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in tubulovillous adenoma with pericolonic subserosal fat invasion 8.5cm, 2) An infiltrative moderately differentiated colonic adenocarcinoma with invasion of muscularis propria 4cm and 3) an invasive moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma with invasion of muscularis propria, 1/69 nodes positive. The case was coded using rule M8 for one primary, but M10 contradicts; and H13 coding rule for histology 8263/3.

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    Assuming that all tumors are in the left colon, there are three tumors:

  • Mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in a villous adenoma

  • Colonic adenocarcinoma

  • Colonic adenocarcinoma

    • Multiple Primary Determination

    In the colon MP rules go to the multiple tumors module. Start with M3. Stop at M7 and abstract as a single primary.

    Histology Code

    Go to the histology coding rules, multiple tumors module, and start with H15. Stop at H20 which tells you to code the most invasive tumor. Tumor 1 is the most invasive according to the definition of most invasive in the 2007 SEER Manual, page C-271. Code 8263/3 [Adenocarcinoma in tubulovillous adenoma].

    		 2007