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: 07/03/2024 04:26 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20081135

MP/H Rules--Lung: Per rule M8, tumors of the same site (left lung), same histology (NSCC), greater than 3 yrs apart are separate primaries.

However, there was a recurrence to mediastinal LNs after 2 years. Would that make a difference as to whether the 2008 left lung carcinoma is reportable as a new primary or not? See Discussion.

 Scenario: NSCC 2004 LLL with positive hilar/mediastinal LNs treated with LLL lobectomy, chemo and rad. 2006 per CT/PET recurrence in mediastinal LNs treated with chemoradiation. 2008 left lung nodule positive for NSCC stated by MD to be recurrence from 2004 (2008 path not compared to 2004 path).

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

The 2008 lung carcinoma is a separate primary according to rule M8. The 2006 diagnosis is metastases to the lymph nodes. Do not apply the MP/H rules to metastases.

 2008
20110057

MP/H Rules/Behavior--Appendix: How do you code mucinous cancers of the appendix? Is a "low grade mucinous appendix tumor/neoplasm" with peritoneal spread reportable? See Discussion.

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.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, low-grade mucinous tumors of the appendix are a /1, borderline/uncertain behavior, and not reportable. These tumors do spread to the peritoneal cavity (pseudomyxoma peritonei). This spread, or deposits, or implants are also borderline/uncertain behavior and do not make the appendiceal tumor reportable. By contrast, a high-grade mucinous tumor of the appendix may produce malignant/invasive pseudomyxoma peritonei. When the pseudomyxoma peritonei are diagnosed as invasive or malignant, the mucinous tumor in the appendix is reportable as a /3.

 2011
20170075

MP/H Rules/Behavior--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted for a patient with a history of left breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) diagnosed in 2014 and bone lesions showing metastatic carcinoma consistent with a breast primary in 2017? See Discussion.

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.

Assuming there were no other breast or any other tumors for this patient, change the behavior code to /3 on the original abstract for the 2014 breast primary.

Similar to SINQ 20110111, there was likely a focus of invasion present in the original tumor that was not identified by the pathologist. The behavior code on the original abstract must be changed from a /2 to a /3 and the stage must be changed from in situ to localized.

The MP/H rules do not apply to metastases. Therefore, rule M8 cannot be used.

 2017
20120030

MP/H Rules/Histology- -Melanoma: What is the correct histology code if the final diagnosis for an excisional biopsy specimen is reported as "malignant melanoma, superficial spreading type" but the under the "cell type" section in the CAP protocol layout of the pathology report it lists "cell type: epithelioid"? See Discussion.

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?

Code the histology to malignant melanoma, superficial spreading type [8743/3] based on the final diagnosis. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a melanoma primary, use the Melanoma Histology rules to determine the histology code because there are site specific rules for cutaneous melanomas.

Start at Rule H1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order from Rule H1 to Rule H10. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the applicable Module. Code the more specific histologic term when the diagnosis is melanoma, NOS [8720] with a single specific type (i.e., superficial spreading) mentioned in the final diagnosis.

The final diagnosis takes precedence over the CAP protocol. The CAP protocol may be used when it provides additional or noncontradictory information, but that does not apply in this case.

 2012
20160009

MP/H Rules/Histology--Appendix: What is the histology for an appendix resection diagnosis of "Malignant neoplasm of the appendix with the following features: Histologic type: Adenocarcinoma ex goblet cell carcinoid with mucin production (adenocarcinoma arising from goblet cell carcinoid)"? Is this histology best coded to a mixed adenocarcinoma/carcinoid tumor (8244/3)?

Code histology to combined carcinoid and adenocarcinoma (8244/3). The tumor is a mix of adenocarcinoma and carcinoid.

2016
20110136

MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: Can information from the CAP checklist that indicates, Tumor configuration: papillary be used to code histology to 8130 [papillary urothelial carcinoma] if the final diagnosis is also stated to be Bladder rumor: urothelial carcinoma and the pathologist stages the case as pTa [noninvasive papillary carcinoma]?

For cases diagnosed 2007 to 2017 ONLY: Code the histology as papillary urothelial carcinoma [8130].NOTE: In the CAP checklist, the statement that the tumor has a papillary configuration is a further description of this tumor. This is supported by the pathologist's stage of pTa [noninvasive papillary carcinoma]. Use the information from the CAP checklist when available. The MP/H Rules will be revised to include the term "configuration" in the specific histology terms for in situ tumors.

The steps used to arrive at this decision are

Step 1: Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. Choose one of the three (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) and go to the Urinary Histo rules. The module you use depends on the behavior and number of tumors identified in the primary site. In this case, the patient has a single bladder tumor per the submitted information.

Step 2: Start at Rule H1 in the Single Tumor module. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order from Rule H1 to Rule H15. Stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing. Stop at Rule H7. Code the histology as 8130/2 (noninvasive papillary urothelial carcinoma) when the urothelial carcinoma is stated to have a papillary configuration.

For cases diagnosed 2018 or later, refer to the Solid Tumor Rules, https://seer.cancer.gov/tools/solidtumor/

 2011
20160016

MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: Can the histology for a high grade urothelial carcinoma described as having "extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation" be coded to sarcomatoid transitional cell carcinoma (8122/3)?

Example; TURBT, Final Diagnosis - Urothelial carcinoma, high grade. Type/grade comment: Extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation is present (40-50% of tumor volume).

Code high grade urothelial carcinoma described as having "extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation" to sarcomatoid transitional cell carcinoma (8122/3).

2016
20130024

MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: How many primaries are accessioned and what rule applies when the patient has a mixed tumor with a urothelial carcinoma, NOS and a more specific histologic type followed by a diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma? See Discussion.

The MP/H Rules do not specifically cover how to process urothelial carcinomas with a more specific type of carcinoma.

Patient 1: Diagnosed in April 2010 with invasive urothelial carcinoma with signet ring features of the bladder. Site and histology are coded as C679 [bladder] and 8490/3 [signet ring cell carcinoma]. In January 2012 a subsequent diagnosis of invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder is made [C679, 8120/3].

Patient 2: Diagnosed in November 2009 with invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma with micropapillary and mucinous features of the bladder. Site and histology are coded C679 [bladder] and 8480/3 [mucinous carcinoma]. In April 2012 a subsequent diagnosis of high grade papillary and flat urothelial carcinoma without evidence of invasion is made [C679, 8130/2].

Does rule M9 apply and these are new primaries?

For cases diagnosed 2007 and later, accession two primaries for each patient, signet ring cell carcinoma of the bladder and invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder for patient 1 and mucinous carcinoma of the bladder and non-invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma of the bladder for patient 2.

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 Urinary MP rules because site specific rules exist for this primary.

Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. For both patients, rule M9 applies because the tumors have histology codes that are different at the second (xxx) number.

This guideline will be reviewed for the next version of the MP/H Rules.

 2013
20170052

MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: Is urothelial carcinoma, high-grade, predominantly solid type, coded as 8120/3 or 8230/3? See Discussion.

Urinary bladder: Invasive urothelial carcinoma, high-grade, 4.5cm, predominantly solid type, arising in background of carcinoma in-situ, carcinoma grossly extends into perivesical adipose tissue; lymph-vascular invasion is seen.

Assign histology code 8120/3, urothelial carcinoma, NOS. Solid type is not a recognized variant of urothelial tumors and likely represents the appearance of the urothelial cells within the tumor and not a specific histologic type.

 2017
20160043

MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: Should the term "dedifferentiation" be used to code sarcomatoid transitional cell carcinoma (8122/3)? Or is this typically referring to the grade, and not the histologic subtype? See Discussion.

Pathology report Final Diagnosis: TURBT : Urothelial carcinoma, high grade. Type/grade comment: Extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation is present (40-50% of tumor volume).

Assign 8122/3 for urothelial carcinoma, extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation. Sarcomatoid dedifferentiation refers to the histologic type. 8122/3 is also correct for the following diagnoses.

         Urothelial carcinoma, sarcomatoid carcinoma or sarcomatoid variant  8122/3

         Urothelial carcinoma with sarcomatoid features  8122/3

 

2016