MP/H Rules--Breast: Patient has 2 existing primaries, both of left breast and both were pure lobular carcinoma, one was diagnosed in 1994 and the other in 2005. Now a biopsy in 2008 of a supraclavicular lymph node (laterality unknown) and subcutaneous scalp tissue show metastatic DUCTAL carcinoma. Per path report, breast is the primary site. Slides from prior tumors were not reviewed. Should this be made a new primary or assumed to be metastasis from the prior breast tumors? See Discussion.
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.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Abstract the 2008 diagnosis as a new primary.
Since the primary site is unproven but stated to be breast, and since the laterality is unknown, we cannot determine that the 2008 diagnosis is the same as the 2005 or the 1994 diagnosis.
Revise this case accordingly if more information becomes available.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: How do you use Rule H5 or H6 to code "moderately diff adenoca with mucinous component"?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology 8140 [Adenocarcinoma]. Rule H6 applies because the final diagnosis is not "mucinous adenocarcinoma" and the percentage of mucinous adenocarcinoma is not stated.
Rule H13 does not apply because "component" is not a term that indicates a specific histology.
MP/H Rules--Breast: What histology code is used for lobular carcinoma, pleomorphic type?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H14 and code the histology 8520 [lobular carcinoma]. 8520 is the only ICD-O-3 code for lobular carcinoma. There are no codes for specific lobular types.
CS Tumor Size--Lung: If a 5/11/07 CT showed a 6.5 cm LLL mass and a 7/24/07 CT showed 8.4 cm LLL mass, do we code the larger tumor size identified within four months of diagnosis or do we code the first size documented at the time of diagnosis?
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Code the larger tumor size.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Anus: What is the correct histology code and MP/H histology rule to use for AIN-3 arising in a polyp? See Discussion.
Patient has colonoscopy with excision of small 5mm polyp in rectum (no mention of anus or anal canal); path reads out: AIN-3 (anal intraepithelial neoplasm grade 3).
In coding the histology using the "Other Sites" rules, H2 would be the first rule that applies for this case. However, we lose the fact that the AIN-3 arose in a polyp (H3). Is this how SEER wants these cases coded?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, apply rule H2 and assign histology code 8077/2 (squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III). Apply the rules in order, H2 precedes H3.
MPH Rules/Behavior--Breast: Would a positive right axillary node following DCIS of the right breast indicate the presence of a new primary? See Discussion.
How would you abstract the information from 2007? A patient with a strong family history of breast cancer had bilateral simple mastectomies in 2000, after a suspicious mammogram. Results showed DCIS in the rt breast; no malignancy in the left breast. Now in 2007, the patient has a right axillary lymph node removed - positive for carcinoma of breast origin. Comment says, "recurrent breast carcinoma in rt axillary node from patient's known history of DCIS." Is this a new primary? Is this a diagnosis date in 2007? Is the site C509 and laterality right side?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
A metastasis was diagnosed in 2007. The 2007 MP/H rules do not apply to metastases.
Change the behavior code of the 2000 diagnosis. The breast cancer diagnosed in 2000 must have been invasive based on the metastasis in 2007.
MP/H Rules--Lung: How do we interpret 'spiculated opacities?' How many primaries do we abstract for this patient? See Discussion.
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?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Because there was cytologic confirmation of cancer, for this case only count the spiculated opacities as tumors. Abstract as a single primary using Rule M1. Note 2 under lung rule M1 applies to this case.
Code the histology as 8041 [small cell carcinoma] per rule H10.
MP/H Rules--Breast: Is inflammatory breast cancer always one primary per lifetime? Or is a subsequent inflammatory breast cancer a second primary if diagnosed more than five years later?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, a diagnosis of inflammatory breast cancer more than five years after a previous diagnosis of inflammatory breast cancer is a separate (new) primary. See rule M5 in the Breast Multiple Primary Rules.
Multiplicity Counter--Ill-defined sites: How is this field coded for Ill-Defined sites (C760-C768)?
Code the number of tumors present if known. If the number of tumors present is not known, code 99 [unknown number of tumors, unknown if multiple tumors].
Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Liver: Does the final diagnosis of a scan have higher priority than the findings in the discussion in the body of the report? See Discussion.
A patient with liver cancer becomes transplant eligible when the tumor is 2 cm in size. Frequently, liver tumors will be watched (no biopsy) for months until they meet the 2 cm size criteria. In the meantime, multiple scans will describe the tumor using variations of ambiguous terms that drift in and out of reportablility. One day the tumor is labeled "presumed hepatocellular carcinoma." Weeks later it is back to "worrisome for hepatoma." A single scan will use different terms in different sections of the report.
Example case: Abdominal CT reveals a 1 cm liver lesion. Per the discussion portion of the scan, the lesion is consistent with hepatocellular carcinoma. Per final diagnosis: 1 cm liver lesion, possibly hepatocellular carcinoma. Is this report diagnostic of cancer? Would the date of this report be the date of diagnosis? (Patient did receive a liver transplant for hepatocellular carcinoma months later.)
When a reportable ambiguous term is used in one part of a report or the medical record and a non-reportable ambiguous term is used in another part of the report or the medical record, accept the reportable term and accession the case.
The example above is reportable. "Consistent with" is a reportable ambiguous term. Accept "consistent with" over the non-reportable term "possibly."
The date of this report would be the date of diagnosis if this is the earliest report using reportable terminology.
An official website of the United States government
Home