MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain: How many primaries are reported and what is the histology for a single brain tumor described as a low grade astrocytoma at the time of the initial partial resection and a low grade glioneuronal neoplasm at the time of the subsequent total resection? See Discussion.
On 4/20/07 a partial resection of a brain tumor is interpreted as low grade astrocytoma. Patient has a gross total resection on 8/13/07 with this diagnosis: low grade glioneuronal neoplasm (see comment). Comment: This case has been reviewed at ---. Dr. agrees with our interpretation (low grade glioneuronal neoplasm, possibly a dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumor).
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is a single primary. A single tumor is always a single primary.
Assign histology code 9400/3 [Astrocytoma, low grade]. This diagnosis was not revised or amended based on the later surgery. It is possible that the malignant component was entirely removed during the first surgery.
MP/H Rules/Recurrence: Is a subsequent diagnosis of an in situ tumor (bladder cancers excluded) a "recurrence" if it follows a prior invasive diagnosis of the original primary cancer made 5 years before?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use the 2007 MP/H rules to determine whether or not a subsequent diagnosis (either invasive or in situ) is a new primary or a recurrence. Do not use the statement "recurrence" from the medical record to make this decision.
When evaluating a subsequent diagnosis and the MP/H rules indicate "single primary," the tumor being evaluated is a "recurrence" of the original primary cancer.
MP/H Rules/Recurrence--Breast: If the pathologist and oncologist call a 2007 lobular carcinoma that appears in a skin nodule of a mastectomy scar a recurrence of a patient's 1975 primary breast duct carcinoma, should we abstract this as a new primary? See Discussion.
According to the pathologist and oncologist, the change in histology is attributed to the present availability of E-cadherin, which was not available in 1975.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract the 2007 diagnosis as a separate primary using rule M5.
Rule M5 applies to this case because it comes before rule M12. Furthermore, based on your statement, the answer presumes that the original tumor was duct carcinoma only, there was no lobular carcinoma present. This must be a new primary because there are two different histologies.
The 2007 MP/H rules were developed with input from clinicians. They advised that a subsequent breast tumor more than five years later is a new primary. It is important to apply the rules so that these cases are handled in a consistant manner across all registries.
MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Bladder: The new multiple primary rule M7 states that tumors diagnosed more than three years apart are multiple primaries. Does this apply to in situ bladder tumors that occur more than three years apart and to an in situ tumor that occurs three years after an invasive tumor?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use the MP/H rules in order. Rule M6 comes before rule M7.
M6 states that bladder tumors with certain histologies are a single primary. It is a single primary regardless of timing if there is any combination of:
papillary carcinoma [8050]
transitional cell carcinoma [8120-8124]
papillary transitional cell carcinoma [8130-8131]
Rule M7 applies to bladder tumors with histologies other than those listed above. If you have such a case, rule M7 applies to in-situ tumors and to an in situ three years after an invasive.
MP/H Rules/Multiplicity Counter--Lung: If metastatic tumors are not counted in this field, should the multiplicity counter be coded to 01 for a case with a primary left lower lobe of lung tumor with a satellite tumor in the left upper lobe?
For cases diagnosed 2007-2013:
No, code multiplicity counter to 02 [two tumors present]. According to the multiple primary rules, these two lung tumors are reported as a single primary. Record the number of tumors reported as a single primary in Multiplicity Counter.
Multiplicity Counter no longer required by SEER as of 1/1/2013.
Ambiguous Terminology/Date of Diagnosis: How would you code the diagnosis date when the body of an imaging report uses reportable ambiguous terminology while the final impression in that same report uses non-reportable ambiguous terminology? Would you code the diagnosis date to the date of the scan or to the subsequent biopsy date that confirmed a malignancy? See Discussion.
Within the body of a mammogram report, the radiologist stated, "diffuse inflammatory tissue throughout the rt breast w/ large rt axillary lymph nodes, consistent with an inflammatory carcinoma of rt breast." His final impression, however, said "extremely suspicious rt breast w/ extremely dense breast parenchyma and adenopathy in axilla, suggesting an inflammatory carcinoma." The patient then went on to have a biopsy, which was indeed positive for cancer.
Accept the reportable ambiguous terminology from the body of the mammogram. Record the date of the mammogram as the date of diagnosis.
The guidelines on page 4 of the 2007 SEER manual addressing discrepancies within the medical record can be applied to discrepancies within one report.
The instructions are:
If one section of the medical record(s) uses a reportable term such as
apparently and another section of the medical record(s) uses a term that is not on the reportable list, accept the reportable term and accession the case.
Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Esophagus: Is a case with a biopsy diagnosis of "... focal areas suspicious for adenocarcinoma in situ change" reportable if the diagnosis on the partial esophagectomy specimen only includes the phrase "... with foci of high grade dysplasia; no invasive carcinoma identified"?
The case is not reportable.
The biopsy with a suspicious result (suspicious for adenocarcinoma) was disproven by the esophagectomy.
First Course Treatment--Liver: Given that agents can be used that are not chemotherapy drugs, how should treatment be coded for a procedure called a "chemoembolization" when the agent used is not documented?
This issue was discussed among the national standard setters and per the SEER website this issue has been resolved as follows: When "chemoembolization" is done but the agents used are not chemotherapy drugs, then treatment should be coded as "Other Therapy." See http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/codingmanuals/embolization.html
First Course Treatment--Melanoma: How and where is the excision for an in-transit metastasis coded if the in-transit metastasis is coded in CS Lymph Nodes? See Discussion.
Excision of skin of scalp nodule reveals in transit metastasis of melanoma. Patient also has lung metastasis and begins systemic treatment. No primary tumor identified.
Code the excision in Surgical Procedure of Other Site because no primary tumor was identified.
An official website of the United States government
Home