SEER Inquiry System - Search

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.

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)?

A modified radical mastectomy was performed on 10/6/94.

The 2007 MP/H rules tell us that multiple ductal and lobular tumors of breast are a single primary; however, the rules do not apply to metastatic tumors.

The patient underwent a PTA biopsy of a lytic mass showing metastatic adenocarcinoma. Imaging revealed a large hepatic mass consistent with cholangiocarcinoma. The physician's impression on a physical exam note was the PTA biopsy was most consistent with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. However, the PTA pathology report was reviewed at this facility and the final diagnosis was not stated to be cholangiocarcinoma, only adenocarcinoma, NOS.

The priority order for coding histology rules in the MP/H Manual indicates pathology has priority over documentation in the medical record. Following the rules in the MP/H Manual, the histology would be coded as 8140 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS]. While this may be technically correct, it seems that intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is often diagnosed as adenocarcinoma on biopsy, but further stated to be cholangiocarcinoma by the physician once other primary sites have been excluded. By applying the rules in the MP/H Manual, cases that seem better characterized as cholangiocarcinomas are being collected as adenocarcinoma, NOS. Should the histology be adenocarcinoma [8140/3] or cholangiocarcinoma [8160/3] for these cases?

Patient admitted for CT scan of chest. Impression: A small subpleural spiculated opacity is noted in the left upper lobe measuring 9.7x7.7mm. Right upper lobe spiculated nodular opacity measures 13.9x5.9mm. Right lower lobe scattered faint alveolar nodular opacities are noted. The lungs are otherwise clear. Abnormal soft tissue density mass is noted of the right hilum surrounding the distal main right pulmonary artery. Bronchoscopy/mediastinoscopy done: rare malignant cells present consistent with small cell carcinoma, specimen submitted as brushing of right bronchus intermedius. The tumor in the lymph node is metastatic small cell carcinoma. Patient discharged to hospice; died 5 weeks later.

Do the MP/H rules pertain only to the measured opacities in each lung and not to the RLL scattered faint alveolar nodular opacities? The right side was cytologically confirmed. But if we abstract the left lung, what is the histology...8041 or 8000?

Low grade mucinous neoplasms can spread to the peritoneal cavity and in that sense are metastatic but histologically have bland/benign features (may be a benign cystadenoma that ruptured and spread by rupturing) are not a carcinoma. Thus, some have termed this group as DPAM (diseminated peritoneal adenomucinous) and not a true carcinoma. Others indicate that if you have metastasis the tumor is a carcinoma.

Patient was diagnosed with DCIS of the left breast in June 2014. The patient had a simple mastectomy with 2 axillary lymph nodes removed. The final diagnosis was intermediate to high grade ductal carcinoma in situ, predominantly micropapillary type, forming a 1.4 cm mass. No invasive carcinoma identified. Margins negative. In April 2017, the patient was found to have parietoccipital bone lesions, which were resected. The resulting diagnosis was metastatic carcinoma, morphologically consistent with breast primary " See Comment: The previous breast lesion is not available for review at the time of signout. However, the tumor is morphologically compatible with a breast primary.

SINQ 20110111 would not make this is new primary. However, it seems that rule M8 might apply. An invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days after diagnosis is a multiple primary. See Note 2: Abstract as multiple primaries even if the medical record/physician states it is recurrence or progression of disease.

The MP/H rules do not address the concept of "cell type" for melanomas when the pathologist uses the CAP protocol to report findings and the cell type listed in that section of the report differs from the specific cell type mentioned in the final diagnosis. Does a case have two specific cell types when the final diagnosis and the "cell type" sections of a single pathology report indicate two more specific melanoma histologies?

Pre-2007 SINQ entries indicate the cell type should be coded. However, if it differs from the specific cell type listed in the final diagnosis does it matter? Do the MP/H rules still take the cell type into account?