Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20150058 | MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries: Is this counted as one or two primaries?
Patient is diagnosed with SCC esophageal cancer. Work-up reveals a lung nodule. Lung FNA (cytology) is read by the pathologist as SCC, favor metastatic esophageal SCC. However, the managing physicians are treating the patient as two separate primaries. |
If the patient is being managed and treated as a case of primary lung cancer, report the lung diagnosis as a separate primary. |
2015 | |
|
|
20140087 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Ampulla of vater: Is this a new primary? Patient has intramucosal adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma of the ampula of vater in Sept. of 2011. In May of 2012, patient has another ampullary adenoma with intraepithelial carcinoma (pTis) and an area suspicious for invasion. This is coded 8263/3.
Rule M14, Multiple in situ and/or malignant polyps are a single primary, precedes rule M15, An invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days after diagnosis is a multiple primary, per the MP rules for 'Other sites', |
Rule M14 applies. Abstract this case as a single primary. |
2014 | |
|
|
20160046 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Bladder: How many primaries should be reported for the case below? See discussion. |
1993 Renal pelvis: Papillary urothelial carcinoma
1994 Bladder: Noninvasive bladder ca NOS
6/11/13 Bladder: Noninvasive papillary urothelial carcinoma
8/19/14 Bladder: urothelial carcinoma in situ
2/13/15 Bladder: Papillary urothelial carcinoma
Would this situation be 2 primaries - 1993 Renal pelvis and 1994 Bladder with the 2015 being the same primary as 1993 Renal pelvis? Or 3 primaries - 1993 Renal pelvis, 1994 Bladder, 2015 Bladder? |
Abstract four primaries, 1993 renal pelvis, 1994 bladder, 2013 bladder, and 2015 bladder.
The 1993 renal pelvis diagnosis and the 1994 bladder diagnosis are separate primaries based on the rules in effect at that time (See pages 7-11, http://seer.cancer.gov/archive/manuals/historic/codeman_1992.pdf )
For the remaining diagnoses, the 2007 MP/H rules apply. The 2013 bladder diagnosis is a new primary per rule M7. The 2014 bladder diagnosis is not a new primary per rule M6. The 2015 bladder diagnosis is a new primary per rule M5. |
2016 |
|
|
20140030 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Bladder: Is this a single primary or multiple primaries? Transurethral resection of the bladder identifies two bladder tumors. Pathology states one is high grade papillary carcinoma (8130/3) and the other is lymphoepithelioma-like urothelial carcinoma (8082/3). Lymphoepithelioma-like is listed as a urothelial type in Table 1 but rule M6 does not include it in the list of histologies and we are not told to refer to Table 1. M8 refers to Table 1 but does not include multiple bladder tumors (C67_). Specify which rule would apply and why. |
Rule M9 applies to this case. Abstract two primaries. M6 does not apply to this case because code 8082 is not one of the applicable histology codes for M6. This situation will be reviewed as we prepare the next version of the rules. |
2014 | |
|
|
20091127 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are to be accessioned for a patient with Neurofibromatosis 2 (NF2) who presents with meningiomas on the left and right side of the brain and multiple meningiomas of the spinal cord? See Discussion. |
We have a patient with NF2 who also has meningiomas diagnosed on the left and right side of the brain as well as multiple meningiomas of the spinal cord. Are the meningiomas all one primary (separate from the NF2): C70.9 and 9530/1? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is four primaries. Report NF2 because it occurs with reportable neoplasms. Note: Report NF only once per patient. Per MP/H Benign CNS Rule M4, the meningiomas of the meninges/brain (C70.0) and meninges/CNS (C70.1) are multiple primaries. Code the meningiomas of the spine to the histology to 9530/1 [Multiple meningiomas] (Rule H6) because there are multiple tumors in the spine. Per Rule M5, the meningiomas of the right and left side of the brain are multiple primaries. Code of each to the histology 9530/0 [Meningioma, NOS] per Rule H2 because they are separate primaries (assuming there is one tumor on each side of the brain). |
2009 |
|
|
20170054 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries should be abstracted for a patient with a 2011 diagnosis of oligodendroglioma followed by biopsy of tumor which demonstrated progression in 2016 with pathology report Final Diagnosis indicating WHO grade III anaplastic astrocytoma? See Discussion. |
The clinical documentation clearly identifies residual tumor after the 2011 craniotomy. Scans demonstrated slow enlargement of the tumor over the years, which resulted in a repeat craniotomy. The pathologist noted in the diagnosis comment section of the pathology report that Is this a single primary per MP/H Rule M3 (A single tumor is always a single primary), or an additional brain malignancy per MP/H Rule M8 (Tumors with ICD-O-3 histology codes on different branches in Chart 1 or Chart 2 are multiple primaries)? |
Based on the information provided, this is a single primary. The 2011 tumor was not completely removed and progressed over the years. MP/H Rule M3 for malignant brain cancer applies. Do not change the original histology code. Use text fields to document the later histologic type of anaplastic astrocytoma, WHO grade III. |
2017 |
|
|
20170011 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: Can we accession two breast primaries when imaging is "suspicious for malignancy" on both breasts but only one biopsy is taken and is histologically confirmed, and assume bilateral complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy with bilateral mastectomies negative for residual cancer? See Discussion. |
The patient is diagnosed by bilateral mammograms suspicious for malignancy in both breasts. A biopsy is done on one breast and is positive. The physician states that he will not biopsy the contralateral breast, as the patient has consented to bilateral mastectomy. The patient receives neoadjuvant chemo, follow by bilateral mastectomies. Both breasts are negative for residual cancer, stated as a complete response. Based on "suspicious for malignancy" can we accession two primaries and assume bilateral complete response? |
Accession two breast primaries, one right and one left, rule M7. "Suspicious" is reportable ambiguous terminology. |
2017 |
|
|
20130199 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: Does breast Rule M10, 'Tumors that are lobular (8520) and intraductal or duct are a single primary" apply if you have two tumors in the same breast, one ductal and the other tubulolobular (8524) or are they separate primaries per Rule M12? |
Apply Rule M10 to this case. Tubulolobular is now classified as a variant of lobular. Code to lobular, NOS (8520) because Tubulolobular does not have a specific ICD-O-3 code. |
2013 | |
|
|
20120062 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned if a patient has a history of breast cancer in 2006 treated with bilateral mastectomies and in 2011 is found to have invasive carcinoma in "breast tissue, right lumpectomy"? See Discussion. |
Patient was originally diagnosed in June 2006, with right breast cancer and underwent lumpectomy and chemotherapy. This was followed by a bilateral mastectomy with reconstruction in January of 2007 that showed no residual tumor in the breast but 1 positive right axillary lymph node. The patient started Arimidex in May 2007 and had ongoing follow-up. In November 2011, the patient noted a "lump to her right upper reconstructed breast at approximately 2:00." Needle biopsy in December 2011 showed invasive carcinoma and the patient underwent a lumpectomy. The lumpectomy pathology report stated, "Breast tissue, right, lumpectomy: poorly differentiated infiltrating ductal cancer." There is no comparison of the current pathology to the previous pathology, as the previous lumpectomy/mastectomy was done at another facility. The patient is being treated at this facility with radiation as if this is a "recurrent/persistent right sided breast cancer." Should this case be classified as a new primary because the pathology report indicates the malignancy was in breast tissue? Or is this actually a chest wall recurrence given the fact that the patient was previously treated with bilateral mastectomies? Should this case be treated as indicated in SINQ 20110111? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession two primaries, right breast cancer diagnosed in June 2006 and a subsequent right breast primary diagnosed in December 2011. 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. Accession two primaries, tumors diagnosed more than five (5) years apart are multiple primaries. If the pathology report stated the tumor originated in residual breast tissue, then this is a new tumor and, therefore, a new primary per rule M5. If the pathology report stated the tumor arose in the chest wall and/or there is no designation of residual breast tissue, then this is a regional metastasis and not a new primary. |
2012 |
|
|
20120082 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned if the patient has two tumors in the left breast, one that is ductal carcinoma with mucinous differentiation and the other is ductal carcinoma, NOS? See Discussion. |
The final diagnosis from the left mastectomy was multifocal invasive ductal carcinoma (mpT1cN0) with associated intermediate grade ductal carcinoma in situ located between the invasive foci. Larger 2:00 focus: moderately differentiated ductal carcinoma with mucinous differentiation (1.4 cm). Smaller 3:00 focus: moderately to poorly differentiated ductal carcinoma (1.2 cm). The histologies of the invasive foci should be coded 8523/3 and 8500/3 respectively. To determine the number of primaries, does rule M11 apply which indicates this should be a single primary even though ductal with mucinous differentiation is not in Tables 1 or 2? Or does rule M12 apply because there is a difference in the third digit of histology and thus means this should be reported as a multiple primary case? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession two primaries, ductal carcinoma with mucinous differentiation [8523/3] and ductal carcinoma, NOS [8500/3]. 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 have been developed for this primary. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M4. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. These tumors have ICD-O-3 histology codes that are different that the third (xxx) digit and are, therefore, multiple primaries. Ductal carcinoma with mucinous differentiation is not a specific type of ductal carcinoma identified in either Table 1 or 2. (To locate Tables 1 and 2, go to Breast under the Terms & Definitions section of the manual.) It is ductal carcinoma mixed with another type of carcinoma (mucinous carcinoma in this case) see Table 3. Rule M11 does not apply. |
2012 |
An official website of the United States government
