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: 02/10/2026 00:49 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20091078 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Head & Neck: How many primaries should be reported when an invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the right mandibular body (C06.9) was diagnosed in 2004 (treated with surgery and radical neck dissection), and an invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the left buccal mucosa (C06.0) was diagnosed in 2007? See Discussion. According to the MP/H Rules, it appears Rule M12 would apply since none of the others fit and these would be a single primary.

For cases diagnosed 2007-2014:

Based on the information provided, the primary site code for the 2004 primary should be C031 [mandibular gingiva, lower alveolar mucosa, etc.].

The 2007 diagnosis would be a separate primary according to rule M7 because the patient was disease free following treatment for the 2004 diagnosis. C031 and C060 are different at the third character.

 2009
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
20091051 MP/H Rules/HistologyCorpus Uteri: How should histology be coded for a "carcinosarcoma with high grade sarcomatous component within a polyp, with greater component of endometrioid carcinoma and foci papillary serous carcinoma within polyp"? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8980/3 [Carcinosarcoma] according to rule H17. Rule H12 does not apply since the final diagnosis is not "adenocarcinoma." 2009
20091072 Histology--Brain and CNS: How is histology coded for a "rosette-forming glioneuronal tumor" of the fourth ventricle?

Assign histology code 9505/1 [Ganglioglioma, NOS].

Rosette-forming glioneuronal tumor of the 4th ventricle is a new WHO entity. There is no current ICD-O-3 code for this. The best code available at this time is 9505/1.

 2009
20091125

Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Thyroid: Should a thyroid case be accessioned based only on a cytology that is consistent with papillary carcinoma? See Discussion.

Instructions in the 2007 SPCSM state that we are not to accession a case based only on a suspicious cytology. Does this rule apply only to the term "suspicious" or does it apply to all ambiguous terms? Example: FNA of thyroid nodule is consistent with papillary carcinoma.

 Do not accession the case if the cytology is the only information in the medical record. The phrase "Do not accession a case based only on suspicious cytology" means that the cytology is the only information in the record. If there is other information that supports the suspicion of cancer (radiology reports, physician statements, surgery), then accession the case. The phrase "suspicious cytology" includes all of the ambiguous terms. 2009
20091012 MP/H Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: If the final diagnosis states "see microscopic description," can the micro information be used to code the histology? See Discussion. In regards to coding histology for 2007 and forward cases, we are instructed to use the final diagnosis, and any addenda or comments associated with the final diagnosis. We are not to use the microscopic description. However, we are seeing pathology reports with a final diagnosis that also includes the notation "see microscopic description" or "see description". Example: "Left Parotid: High grade carcinoma involving deep lobe with marginal extension. See description." The microscopic description goes on to describe the carcinoma in more detail, which includes a statement "consistent with the ductal type of primary parotid carcinoma." Can we use this microscopic description or not?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

When the final diagnosis indicates that the microscopic section contains the detailed diagnosis, use the microscopic description to code the histology.

Otherwise, code from the final diagnosis only and not from the microscopic description. The final diagnosis is usually the pathologist's conclusion after consideration of the various choices listed in the microscopic description. The histology code should represent the pathologist's final conclusion.

 2009
20091025

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: How should we handle urinary tract tumors diagnosed before the MP rules went into effect when determining the number of primaries to report primaries? How do you apply rules M5, M6 and M8 when an invasive bladder tumor and other urinary site tumors occur before and after the effective date of these rules? See Discussion.

Example: Patient with a prior in situ carcinoma of the bladder in 11/89, left ureter papillary transition cell carcinoma in situ diagnosed in 5/05, left renal pelvis papillary transition cell carcinoma in situ diagnosed in 8/07 and invasive bladder carcinoma diagnosed in 3/08. When an invasive bladder tumor and other urinary site tumors occur, do you stop with the bladder at rule M5 and M6 never reaching M8?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Use the 2007 MP/H rules for urinary sites to assess diagnoses made in 2007-2014. Use the multiple tumors module to compare a diagnosis in 2007-2014 to an earlier diagnosis.

For the example above, start by comparing the left renal pelvis diagnosis in 8/07 to the earlier left ureter primary diagnosed 5/05. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M8. The 8/07 renal pelvis diagnosis is not a new primary. Next, compare the 3/08 bladder tumor to the earlier left ureter primary diagnosed 5/05. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M5. The 3/08 bladder tumor is a new primary because it is an invasive diagnosis following an in situ diagnosis. Use only the more recent of the two earlier urinary diagnoses for comparison. Do not compare the 2007 and later diagnoses to the 11/89 in situ bladder primary in this case.

 2009
20091116 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries - - Colon: Is a colon tumor reported as "recurrent at the anastomotic junction" just over one year after the diagnosis of a T4 colon tumor to be counted as a new primary? See Discussion.

MP/H rules do not apply to metastasis. However, it has been our experience that pathologists and clinicians tend to use the terms metastatic and recurrence interchangeably. The term "recurrence" is not limited to a tumor recurrence in the same site as a previous malignancy. Sometimes it is obvious that the clinician is using the term recurrence to describe a metastatic lesion. When a "recurrence" is located in tissue that is very different from the original primary site, it is easy to recognize that the intended meaning of the term is metastasis.

Example: Patient with squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue with recurrence in the lung.

However, when the metastatic deposit occurs in similar tissue, it is more difficult to determine the number of primaries.

Example when the term "recurrence" is ambiguous: In April 2008 patient was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the ascending colon. At the time of hemicolectomy the tumor was noted to be plastered into the paraduodenal and peripancreatic area. Patient received one dose of adjuvant chemo and then discontinued treatment. In May 2009 the patient was found to have adenocarcinoma in the transverse colon. Per the pathology report the diagnosis for segmental resection at that time showed colonic adenocarcinoma. Tumor location: tumor appears recurrent at anastomotic junction. Abdominal wall mass showed metastatic adenocarcinoma.

One has to wonder if the pathologist found a metastatic nodule at the anastomotic site and called it "recurrent." It is unlikely that the pathologist will compare this specimen to the previous tumor, having already diagnosed it as "recurrent."

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M4 applies to the example of adenocarcinoma of ascending colon diagnosed in 2008 followed by adenocarcinoma of transverse colon diagnosed in 2009. When a colon resection has taken place, the original primary site is no longer present. A colon resection usually includes a portion of uninvolved colon on either side of the tumor. A tumor diagnosed at the anastomotic junction cannot be located in the same site as the previous tumor. Use of the term "recurrent" in this case is not synonymous with "metastatic." Apply the MP/H rules. 2009
20091084 Primary site--Colon: How do you determine the correct subsite when there is conflicting information in different reports? Are there priority rules for coding subsite for sites other than Head and Neck? See Discussion. The path report for a hemicolectomy says, " Specimen: left colon..." and the microscopic says, "...received in formalin designated left colon..." The Operative procedure report says, "Postoperative diagnosis - splenic flexure tumor." The text of this report says, "Mobilizing the splenic flexure mass was incredibly difficult..." and then goes on to describe exactly how and where it was resected. The discharge summary says adenosquamous carcinoma of the splenic flexure. SINQ20051010 says to use the pathology report first, but this was written before the new MP/H rules.

Use the operative report information to code primary site in this case. It is more accurate.

The operative report is usually a better source of location information compared to the pathology report. The pathologist can only reiterate the location as it was reported to him/her.

The 2007 SEER manual states "Unless otherwise instructed, use all available information to code the site," page 69.

 2009
20091057 CS Site Specific Factor--Lymphoma: Can the term "intermediate risk" be used to code IPI score? See Discussion. Patient has Hodgkin disease. The physician states that the patient has bulky stage IIA intermediate risk disease. Is the term "risk" another way of stating IPI score? If so, how would intermediate risk be coded?

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 SSF 3 for lymphoma based on the IPI score stated in the record. Do not attempt to interpret statements or terms in order to assign a code to SSF 3. If no further information is available for this case, code SSF 3 999 [Unknown].

 2009