Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20091024 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: Are diagnoses in bladder, ureter, renal pelvis, and other urinary made prior to 2007 used in determining multiple primaries? See Discussion. |
Per the General Information for MPH, Rule #3, the rules are effective for cases diagnosed January 1, 2007 and after. Do not use these rules to abstract cases diagnosed prior to January 1, 2007. Example: Is a 2006 diagnosis of a renal pelvis primary with the histology 8130/3 and a 2007 diagnosis of a bladder primary with histology 8130/3 "multiple tumors" or is the bladder tumor a new primary because it is a single tumor at the time of diagnosis in 2007? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Use the 2007 MP/H rules for urinary sites to assess tumors diagnosed in 2007 or later. For the example above, use the 2007 rules to determine whether or not the bladder tumor diagnosed in 2007 is a new primary. Use the Multiple Tumors module when comparing a 2007 or later diagnosis to an earlier diagnosis. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M8. The 2007 bladder urothelial tumor is not a new primary since there is an existing 2006 renal pelvis urothelial primary. |
2009 |
|
|
20091002 | Multiplicity Counter--Ovary: Given the diffuse nature of ovarian cancer, should we count bilateral parenchymal involvment of ovaries as two tumors? See Discussion. |
Are peritoneal implants mets and not counted as separate tumors, even though they're not stated to be metastatic in the path report, and are not coded as distant mets? |
Code Multiplicity Counter to 02 [Two tumors present] for an epithelial ovarian primary involving both ovaries. Do not count the peritoneal implants; they are regional metastasis and not included in the multiplicity counter. An example like this will be added to the manual in the next revision. |
2009 |
|
|
20091111 | Grade--Breast: How is this field coded for an "invasive ductal carcinoma, well differentiated, low nuclear grade"? | Assign code 1 [Grade 1, well differentiated]. Use the table in the 2007 SEER Manual on page C-607. Both "low grade" and "well differentiated" are coded 1 in the grade field. | 2009 | |
|
|
20091043 | Multiple primaries--Lymphoma: Should a second primary lymphoma be accessioned if the reporting hospital disagrees with the final diagnosis stated on a review of slides? See Discussion. |
Example: Patient had an original diagnosis of small lymphocytic lymphoma (9670/3) of lung in 1986 and later presents with small B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (9670/3) of small bowel in 2008 at Hospital A. Slides sent for review at Hospital B where patient was also seen. Slides there read as low grade B-cell lymphoma most consistent with extranodal marginal B-cell lymphoma of mucosal associated tissue (MALT Lymphoma). Hospital A's pathology report stated that immunostains would exclude mantle cell lymphoma and MALT lymphoma and the original pathology report has not been amended to match the outside path diagnosis. Is this a second primary of MALT lymphoma (9699)? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:The 2008 diagnosis is not a new primary according to the Definitions of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies (the tri-fold heme table) using the pathology report diagnosis from the facility where the procedure was performed (Hospital A). Since Hospital A disagreed with the slide review and did not amend their diagnosis based on the slide review, do not use the slide review diagnosis in this case. For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ. |
2009 |
|
|
20091058 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney: How is histology coded when it is described in the pathology report as "Histologic type: Clear cell (conventional) renal cell carcinoma. Percent of sarcomatoid component: 10%"? See Discussion. | MP/H rules for kidney, Table 1 lists both clear cell and sarcomatoid as specific types of renal cell carcinoma. The MP/H terms and definitions for kidney state that clear cell is architecturally diverse. For this case, does the sarcomatoid component represent a subtype of clear cell that has not been assigned an ICD-O code, and thus histology should be coded to 8310? Or does the sarcomatoid component represent a specific type of renal cell carcinoma for which rule H6 would apply? Should histology be coded 8255 for this case? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8310 [clear cell adenocarcinoma] according to rule H5. Renal cell, clear cell and sarcomatoid are mentioned in the diagnosis. Sarcomatoid is referred to as a component. Component is not one of the terms listed in rule H5 that indicate a more specific type. Ignore sarcomatoid in this case. Use table 1 to identify clear cell as a specific renal cell type. Code the specific type (clear cell) according to rule H5. | 2009 |
|
|
20091027 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Thyroid: How many primaries should be coded in a patient with a 4/5/08 left thyroid lobectomy diagnosis of follicular carcinoma followed by a 7/25/08 right thyroid lobectomy diagnosis of papillary carcinoma, follicular variant? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Rule M17 under Other Sites applies. These are separate primaries based on their ICD-O-3 histology codes. Follicular carcinoma is coded 8330. Papillary carcinoma, follicular variant is coded 8340. The histology codes are different at the third number. Rule M6 does not apply because these diagnoses are more than 60 days apart. |
2009 | |
|
|
20091049 | P/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung/Breast: Can we assume that a current tissue specimen is a recurrence of previous primary if a pathologist states that he has compared the current specimen with the slides from the prior tumor and concludes that the current tumor is "similar" to a previous tumor? See Discussion. | The MP/H rule general information section states that we do not accession a second primary unless a pathologist compares the current tumor to the original tumor and states that the current tumor is a recurrence of cancer from the previous primary. In our experience it is rare that a pathologist speaks so bluntly. They frequently hedge somewhat. Are the following statements worded strongly enough for us to make the assumption that the current tumor is a recurrence of patient's previous cancer? Example 1: Pathologist states: Patient's prior lung tumor reviewed. The tumor in the current case (left lower lobe) shows similarities to some areas of the patient's prior left lower lobe tumor. Example 2: Pathologist states: The focus of ductal carcinoma in the mastectomy specimen does resemble the carcinoma in the previous partial mastectomy specimen. (Slides reviewed). |
All pathologists do not use words in the same way. Therefore, we will not provide a list of specific words to accept or not to accept in order to determine recurrence. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, do not base your decision about recurrence on words such as "similar" or "resembles." If the pathologist believes two or more tumors are the same or believes one is a recurrence of another after comparison, accept it. When pathologists believe that two or more tumors are not the same or believe that one is not a recurrence of another, there is usually a strong statement indicating that opinion. | 2009 |
|
|
20091104 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Esophagus: How is histology coded for a biopsy of the esophagus with a pathologic diagnosis of "adenocarcinoma, intestinal type" when there is no evidence of a gastric tumor in scans or EDG? See Discussion. | There is a rule for colon to disregard "intestinal type" and code to adenocarcinoma (8140) but no rule for esophagus. How should histology for this esophageal case be coded? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Follow MP/H Other Sites Rule H11 and code 8144/3 [Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type]. Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type, is called that because it resembles the normal pattern of adenocarcinoma seen in the large intestines. It is not an indication of the location of the adenocarcinoma. We find that it is not uncommon in the sinuses, stomach, lungs, cervix, and many other organs. |
2009 |
|
|
20091076 | Surgery of Primary Site/Scope Regional LN Surgery--Breast: How should these fields be coded when a sentinel lymph node dissection removes one-to-three axillary lymph nodes and a total/simple mastectomy is done? | Assign code 41 [Total (simple) mastectomy, NOS WITHOUT removal of uninvolved contralateral breast] for Surgery of Primary Site. Assign code 2 [Sentinel lymph node biopsy] for Scope of Regional Lymph Node surgery. Code 41 applies to a total/simple mastectomy with any number of sentinel lymph nodes removed -- as long as all of the nodes removed are designated as sentinel nodes. | 2009 | |
|
|
20091117 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology to be coded for a breast primary described as "tubular carcinoma (well differentiated invasive ductal carcinoma)"? See Discussion. | How are terms that are modified by parentheses to be interpreted? Do terms in parentheses modify the stated diagnosis and thus have priority over the stated diagnosis? Or would rule H17 apply and histology would be coded as duct and other carcinoma? For this case, the wording of the diagnosis and use of parentheses seem to indicate that tubular is a type of ductal carcinoma. Tubular is not listed as a specific duct carcinoma in the MP/H rules histology tables for breast. |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology as tubular carcinoma [8211/3]. This is not a case of tubular AND infiltrating duct. The histology is stated to be tubular. Tubular is not a specific type of duct carcinoma. | 2009 |
An official website of the United States government
