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: 02/16/2026 22:59 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20081112 MP/H Rules--Breast: Is a 2008 invasive ductal carcinoma counted as a new primary when it follows a 2005 invasive lobular carcinoma diagnosed in the same breast? See Discussion. The patient has invasive lobular breast carcinoma excised in 2005. She returns in 2008 with a new invasive ductal carcinoma tumor same breast. Following MP/H rules, M10 seems to apply, which states this is still a single primary. Does this mean that this invasive ductal carcinoma is ignored and the patient remains in the registry with only a lobular carcinoma primary?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Rule M10 applies. The 2008 diagnosis is not a new primary.

The abstract for the 2005 diagnosis should be annotated to include the new information.

 2008
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
20081039 Diagnostic Confirmation/Histology--Hematopoietic: How are these fields coded when the final pathologic diagnosis for a bone marrow biopsy differs from the final clinical diagnosis of a hematopoietic disease? See Discussion.

Frequently, pathology reports describe hematopoietic diseases using ambiguous terms. Flow cytology and cytogenetics may be obtained. It appears that the clinician is the person who pulls all the information together for a diagnosis.

Example: Bone marrow biopsy is most compatible with chronic phase myeloproliferative disease. Path comment: Differential would include CML. Outside hematology report indicates an elevated peripheral WBC, primarily neutrophils. Flow cytometry showed 1.0 % of the white cells are myeloid blasts of abnormal phenotype, additionally finding 7.3 % basophils. Flow reported peripheral blasts at 1.2 % and peripheral basophilia. Cytogenetics report showed abnormality with trisomy of chromosomes 13 and 21. This finding is consistent with a clonal abnormality suggestive of acquired disease. Results were consistent with the absence of the t(9,22)(q34;q11) translocation or fusion product associated with CML. Subsequent clinical impression: Bone marrow evaluation most consistent with CML. Overall features most consistent with CML.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field as 1 [positive histology]. Code the ICD-O-3 morphology based on the clinician's statement.

The code in Diagnostic Confirmation pertains to the best method used to confirm the presence of cancer over the entire course of the disease. Therefore, if a bone marrow report confirms cancer, code 1 [positive histology] in Diagnostic Confirmation.

Code the histology using all of the information available. The clinician has access to all of the information relating to this case. The pathologist had only the bone marrow. Code the histology recorded by the clinician.

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.

 2008
20081106

MP/H Rules--Breast: How many primaries for the following?

Breast lumpectomy: Three foci of invasive ductal carcinoma.

Tumor nodule #1 - Invasive ductal carcinoma.

Tumor nodule #2 - Invasive ductal carcinoma with tubular features.

Tumor nodule #3 - Invasive tubular carcinoma.

See Discussion.

According to the MP/H rules, this case is reportable as three primaries with histologies coded 8500, 8523 and 8211. However, our QC staff is having a problem accepting this. When the pathologist specifies that a ductal carcinoma has tubular features or is tubular type, isn't s/he saying that tubular is a type of duct? In addition, the first line of the FDx states, "Three foci of ductal carcinoma," which indicates that the pathologists interprets the three nodules to be ductal carcinoma.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

These three tumors are three separate primaries. Rule M12 applies.

According to the 2007 MP/H rules, tubular carcinoma is not a type of duct carcinoma.

Among the paramount reasons for writing the MP/H rules are the non-standard usage of nomenclature by physicians and the inconsistency in interpretation of these non-standard phrases. The MP/H rules must be applied consistently by each cancer registrar in order for data to be comparable across registries.

 2008
20081085 MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: Per MP/H rule H3 for colon, code 8144/3 [Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type] should not be used with C180-C189 [colon]. However, page 58 of the ICD-O-3 SEER Site/Histology Validation list of February 9, 2001 lists code 8144/3 as a valid histology for large intestine. See Discussion. None of the errata have this site/histo combination. It is causing problems with researchers because pathologists still use the term: Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type for tumors of the large bowel. Please clarify or print errata.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

This issue has been presented to the Edits work group. The preliminary response is that 8144/3 will be removed from the valid site/histology list for large intestine, small intestine, and rectum.

The edits based on the site/type list are used by many organizations. Any change to the site/type list is taken to the Edits work group.

 2008
20081084

Reportability: Is a tubular adenoma reportable if the final diagnosis is "high grade atypia" and the diagnosis comment is "atypia limited to muscularis mucosa areas of pseudostratification [formerly qualifying for carcinoma in situ]"?

This case is not reportable.

The pathologist would need to include "carcinoma in situ" as part of the final diagnosis in order for this case to be reportable.

 2008
20081122 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Patient has single invasive left breast tumor diagnosed in 2008. Final pathology diagnosis is "Invasive solid papillary carcinoma". No mention of ductal in report. What is histology?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

As of July 2010:

Code the histology 8503 [Infiltrating papillary adenocarcinoma].

This is solid papillary, not solid AND papillary carcinoma. Solid is an adjective modifying papillary, in other words, a subtype of papillary. We do not have a code for solid papillary, so we code to the NOS, papillary using rule H14.

 2008
20081075 Race, ethnicity/Spanish surname or origin: SEER Program Manual instructions state, "Portugese, Brazilians and Filipinos are not Spanish; Code non-Spanish (code 0)." How is that determined? Is that based SOLELY on birthplace? See Discussion.

The following are scenarios for which we would like clarification on how to code Spanish Ethnicity.

  • Birthplace Portugal; text states Spanish, south American or European Spanish

  • Birthplace Brazil, last name is on Spanish surname list; pt is married female. Text states "Hispanic female, NOS"

  • Birthplace Brazil or Portugal, text states patient is "Mexican", last name is on Spanish surname list

    • Information about Spanish origin is available for both of these cases; code the race as Hispanic. Use the SEER manual instruction when the only information available is that the patient was born in Portugal, Brazil or the Philippines. In the absence of additional information, do not assume Hispanic. However, if additional information is available stating that the patient is Hispanic, code as Hispanic.

    Spanish Surname or Origin Scenarios

  • 6 [Spanish, NOS; Hispanic, NOS; Latino, NOS]

  • 6 [Spanish, NOS; Hispanic, NOS; Latino, NOS]

  • 1 [Mexican (includes Chicano)]

    		• 2008
    		20081109

    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.

    		 2008
    		20091028

    MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries/Cancer-directed treatment--Lung: Is a 2008 occurrence of non-small cell carcinoma in the left lower lobe following a 1998 occurrence of the same histology in the left lung to be counted as a new primary if the 1998 primary was treated with chemotherapy and/or radiation but not surgery? See Discussion.

    1998 diagnosis on non-small cell carcinoma treated with radiation and chemotherapy. In 2008, there is an abnormality in the LLL with brushings/washings positive for non-small cell carcinoma.

    According to the MP/H rules, M8 states this would be a new primary. However, in the document titled " Quality Improvement Meeting August 2008," found on the SEER website, it stated that because the patient never had surgery for the initial primary there is no evidence that the patient was ever disease free. Therefore, the occurrence of the latter tumor would not be a new primary (p. 7, "colon"). Does this answer pertain only to surgery or does it apply to any type of treatment?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the 2007 MP/H rules apply if the 2008 diagnosis is a new tumor. Was there any statement that the patient was free of disease (NED) after the chemo and radiation therapy? (A patient can be disease free without surgery). If there is no statement to the contrary, no mention of metastasis from the 1998 diagnosis, and no mention of disease between 1998 and 2008, follow lung rule M8 and abstract the 2008 diagnosis as a new primary.

    This lung case differs from the colon case discussed in the document titled "Quality Improvement Meeting August 2008." For the colon case, there was disease in 2003, 2005 and 2007. Based on the information provided, the 2007 diagnosis was not a new tumor because the patient was never free of disease. Therefore, the 2007 diagnosis is not a new primary. The number of reportable primaries was based on disease status over time, and was not based on the type of treatment given for the initial tumor (i.e., surgery or any other treatment modality).

    		 2009