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: 11/27/2024 18:35 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20120095 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned if a patient is diagnosed with inflammatory carcinoma of the left breast, (ductal with apocrine features type on biopsy), and an incidental lobular carcinoma in the right breast? See Discussion. A 1.2 cm lobular carcinoma was incidentally discovered during the work-up of the patient's left breast that was inflammatory carcinoma. The lobular carcinoma on the right was localized without any skin involvement. Rule M6 indicates inflammatory breast carcinoma in either breast is a single primary. Does rule M6 apply when the patient has inflammatory carcinoma in one breast and a separate lobular carcinoma in the other?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession two primaries, ductal with apocrine features in the left breast and lobular carcinoma in the right breast.

The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). Go to the Breast MP rules because site specific rules exist for this primary.

Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M4. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. The patient has tumors in both the right and left breasts.

Rule M6 does not apply because inflammatory carcinoma involves only the left breast and the patient has a different histology in the right breast and there is no mention of inflammatory carcinoma in that breast. In this situation continue to the next applicable rule.

2012
20130205 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are reported and what is the histology for each in a case of infiltrating duct and lobular carcinoma of the breast (8522) with Paget disease of the same breast? Abstract as two primaries according to rule M12. We interpret this as one tumor with infiltrating duct and lobular carcinoma (8522) and a second tumor with Paget disease (8540). 2013
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
20091096 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be reported when an in situ diagnosis is followed by an invasive diagnosis in the same breast 1.5 years later? See Discussion. Patient had a core biopsy 1/07 that showed DCIS and PE showed no adenopathy. Patient refused resection, and adjuvant treatment. In 6/08, the pt returned for a modified radical mastectomy which showed infiltrating duct carcinoma and positive lymph nodes. A comment in the Correction Record stated "Per MD, patient did not see any urgency and delayed surgery 1.5 years after diagnosis." The patient did not have any treatment in that time period and there is no statement that there was progression. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract the 6/08 invasive diagnosis as a separate primary according to rule M8. Rule M8 applies whether or not the later diagnosis in this case is progression of disease. 2009
20140011 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: Is the diagnosis of Paget disease two years after a diagnosis of infiltrating duct carcinoma of the same breast a new primary? See discussion. A patient was diagnosed and treated in 2010 for infiltrating duct carcinoma of the left breast. There was no mention of Paget disease. Then in 2012, the same patient was diagnosed with Paget disease of the nipple of the left breast. Rule M9 seems to apply; so this is the same primary, correct? And the information about the Paget disease is simply never captured, correct? Yes, Rule M9 makes this a single primary. You could revise the original histology code to 8541/3 on the assumption that Paget was present at the original diagnosis, but not yet identified. 2014
20091114 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: Would a left chest wall mass excision stated to be ductal carcinoma consistent with a breast primary and, "compatible with either local recurrence or potentially a metastasis" be a new primary per the MP/H rules? See Discussion. Patient underwent mastectomy in 1986 for infiltrating ductal carcinoma of left breast. Excision of left chest wall mass in March 2009 showed ductal carcinoma consistent with breast primary. The pathology report COMMENT stated it would be compatible with either local recurrence or a metastasis. The patient's primary breast carcinoma material is not available for direct comparison and the MP/H rules instruct us to ignore metastasis. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the MP/H rules do not apply to metastasis. If there is no further information available for this case, the MP/H rules do not apply to the 2009 diagnosis. 2009
20100035 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Colon: How many primaries are accessioned for a patient with two colon carcinomas in different segments of colon when there is no documentation that either tumor arose in a polyp, there is no statement indicating the presence of adenomatous polyposis coli and the resected pathology specimen indicates the presence of over 200 polyps? See Discussion.

The first MP/H rule that applies for this case is M4 [tumors in different segments of the colon]. Following rule M4, the case would be counted as two primaries and the histology would be coded per Rule H11. As these are multiple primaries, Rule H17 [Code 8220 (adenocarcinoma in adenomatous polyposis coli) when there are > 100 polyps identified in the specimen] would never apply, because H17 applies to multiple tumors abstracted as a single primary. However, Rule H17 seems to fit this case. Should Rule M3 be expanded to include a statement about > 100 polyps so these cases are not accessioned as multiple primaries?

Example: Total colectomy: 1) Distal tumor: - ulcerating moderately differentiated colonic adenocarcinoma, 3.2 cm in greatest dimension. Tumor invades through the muscularis propria into the subserosa (pt3). 2) Proximal tumor: exophytic moderately differentiated colonic adenocarcinoma, 2.9 cm in greatest dimension. Tumor invades submucosa (pt1). Multiple tubular adenomas present throughout the colon, approximate count greater than 200.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule M3 for this case and abstract as a single primary. The case information makes it clear that this is adenomatous polyposis coli. Clarification will be added to rule M3 in the next revision of the rules. 2010
20100034 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Esophagus: Should two separate nodules of adenocarcinoma with one at the GE junction [C160] and one arising in Barretts esophagus of the distal esophagus [C155] be accessioned as a single primary because these sites are now grouped together in the same stage grouping per the AJCC 7th Edition? See Discussion.

Per notes included in CSv2, the cardia/EGJ, and the proximal 5cm of the fundus and body of the stomach [C16.0-C16.2] have been moved from the Stomach chapter and added to the Esophagus chapter effective with AJCC TNM 7th Edition. A new schema, EG Junction, was created in CSv2 to accommodate this change. Tumors arising at the EGJ, or arising in the stomach within 5 cm of the EGJ and crossing the EGJ are staged using the schema for EG Junction. MP/H Rule M11 states that tumors with ICD-O-3 topography codes that are different at the second (Cxxx) and/or third characters (Cxxx) are multiple primaries.

In light of the fact that tumors of the GE junction are now included with tumors of the esophagus in AJCC 7th Edition, will the MP/H rules also be adjusted to reflect that change?

 For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use the multiple primary rules to determine the number of primaries. Use staging resources for staging. Abstract two primaries for the case example using Rule M11. 2010
20120080 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Kidney, renal pelvis/Bladder: How many primaries are accessioned if the patient was diagnosed with transitional cell carcinoma in situ of the renal pelvis in October 2006, TCC in situ of the bladder in July 2008 and TCC in situ of the ureter in November 2009?. See Discussion. Per MP/H rule M8, the TCC in situ of the bladder diagnosed in July 2008 is the same primary as the TCC in situ of the renal pelvis diagnosed in October 2006. Should the new TCC in situ of the ureter diagnosed in November 2009 be a new primary per rule M7 because the renal pelvis TCC in situ was diagnosed in 2006? Or does the 3 year time frame for rule M7 start from the date of the last recurrence (July 2008)?

Abstract two primaries for this scenario per Rule M7. The first primary is the renal pelvis in Oct. 2006; the second primary is the ureter in Nov. 2009. The bladder tumor in July 2008 is not a new primary per Rule M8.

Compare the diagnosis date of the current (most recent) tumor to the diagnosis date of the original tumor. This applies even if the patient had six occurrences in-between these dates; you still compare the current tumor to the diagnosis date of the original tumor and ignore recurrences in this process.

See slide 6 of the Beyond the Basics presentation,

http://www.seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/training_adv/SEER_MPH_Gen_Instruc_06152007.pdf.

2012
20130094 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries are accessioned and which M rule applies for a 2010 diagnosis of clear cell adenocarcinoma of the left upper lobe lung followed by a 2012 diagnosis of adenosquamous carcinoma of lung origin without evidence of a primary lung tumor? See Discussion.

Patient was diagnosed with T1 N0 M0 adenocarcinoma with prominent clear cell features [8310/3] in the LUL on 08/05/2010. The patient underwent a lobectomy only.

On 10/09/2012 the patient underwent an iliac bone biopsy showing non-small cell carcinoma with glandular and squamous features [8560/3]. Clinically, the physician is calling this stage IV adenosquamous carcinoma of lung origin involving lymph nodes, spleen and bones. There were no FDG avid pulmonary nodules found. There was no pathologic comparison to the prior lung tumor.

Should the 2012 diagnosis be a new primary because the histology is different from the 2010 diagnosis? Or should this be one primary because there appears to be only metastatic disease with no new primary lung tumor identified in 2012? The choice of one primary seems supported by the fact that the 2012 tumor showed glandular and squamous features, and the 2010 tumor also showed glandular and clear cell (NOS) features. The clear cell could have been a clear cell squamous cell carcinoma. The original tumor was not re-examined.

Accession a single primary, clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] of the left upper lobe lung [C341] diagnosed on 08/05/2010.

The MP/H Rules do not apply to the 2012 diagnosis because only metastatic sites were examined and there was no re-examination of the original 2010 tumor. Therefore, the disease process in 2012 is assumed to be metastatic from the lung primary diagnosed in 2010.

2013