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: 02/23/2026 08:00 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20091112 Grade-Breast: How is this field coded for a breast tumor described as "intermediate nuclear grade"? See Discussion.

Guidelines for selecting grade for breast primaries prioritize nuclear grade right after B&R grade. The conversion table displays only numeric values for nuclear grade. How is grade coded for tumors in which nuclear grade is described by terminology? Does it make a difference if the tumor is invasive or in situ?

Example 1: Ductal carcinoma, intermediate nuclear grade.

Example 2: Ductal carcinoma, high nuclear grade.

Example 3: Ductal carcinoma, moderate nuclear grade.

Example 4: DCIS, intermediate nuclear grade.

Use the table on page C-607 of the 2007 SEER manual. The terms "low," "intermediate," and "high" appear in the column labeled "BR Grade." Use this column to determine the appropriate grade code when grade is described using these terms. If the grade of an in situ tumor is described using these terms, use the table to determine the appropriate code for the grade field. 2009
20091018 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries/CS Extension: How many primaries are to be accessioned when tumors are present bilaterally in the pleura and fallopian tubes? See Discussion.

For both pleura and fallopian tube, the MP/H rules indicate that bilateral involvement of these sites should be coded as multiple primaries. However, both of these sites have CS extension codes that classify the contralateral disease as regional extension.

Is a case described as a left sided pleural mesothelioma that has right sided pleural disease coded as one or two primaries? How is CS coded?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

For a pleural or fallopian tube primary, if there is tumor(s) on the left and separate tumor(s) on the right and neither is stated to be metastatic from the other, abstract as multiple primaries according to rule M8 for other sites. If both sides are involved, but there is only one tumor, rule M2 for other sites applies and this is a single primary. Code each primary separately in CS.

 2009
20091119

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries are to be reported for an adenocarcinoma of the lung in the right middle lobe of the lung and bronchioalveolar carcinoma, non-mucinous type in the right upper lobe? See Discussion.

Bilobectomy revealed two tumors, adenocarcinoma in the right middle lobe and bronchioalveoar carcinoma non-mucinous type in the right upper lobe. MP/H rule M10 states that tumors with non-small cell carcinoma (8046) and a more specific non-small cell type (chart 1) are a single primary. Does rule M10 apply to only those cases for which one tumor is stated to be non-small cell, NOS? Or do we use chart 1 to identify specific subtypes? For this case, using chart 1, would we note that bronchioalveolar is a subtype of adenocarcinoma and count this case as a single primary? Most of the MP/H rules schemas have a rule making an adenocarcinoma and a more specific type of adenocarcinoma a single primary. Would we apply rule M10 to this case and count it as a single primary? Or would we move on to rule M11 and count the case as two primaries?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M11 applies. Accession two primaries.

Rule M10 applies only to cases for which one tumor is stated to be "non-small cell carcinoma."

 2009
20091059 CS Tumor Size--Breast: How is this field coded for DCIS that is present in scattered small foci over five of eight slides, and the greatest aggregate dimension measures 0.5 cm? See Discussion. Breast biopsy was prompted by abnormality seen on mammography. Would this be an example of when to code 996 (mammographic/xerographic diagnosis only, no size given; clinically not palpable) applies for the CS Tumor Size field?

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.Assign code 005 [0.5 cm] in this case. According to the General Instructions for CS tumor size, it is acceptable to code an aggregate size stated by the pathologist (see instruction 4.i).

 2009
20091131 Multiplicity Counter/Type of Multiple Tumors--Breast: How are these fields coded when a patient underwent a lumpectomy demonstrating two measured foci of invasive ductal carcinoma (1.5 cm and 3 mm) and "focally seen" in situ ductal carcinoma (DCIS) followed by a re-excision that is positive for 1.5 mm focus of residual invasive carcinoma? See Discussion.

Lumpectomy path shows two foci of invasive ductal carcinoma, 1.5 cm & 3 mm sizes, and CAP summary lists "DCIS: focally seen", no further description. The re-excision pathology specimen finds a 1.5 mm focus of residual invasive carcinoma, very close to the new inferior margin (so registrar assumed this was probably not part of the previously excised mass), and no mention of any more in situ.

Can we assume the DCIS was associated with/part of the invasive tumors because it was not measured or described separately? If we say there are 3 tumors (for the measured invasive foci), should Type of Multiple Tumors be coded 30 [In situ and invasive] or 40 [Multiple invasive]?

Code 03 [3 tumors] in the multiplicity counter. Do not count the "focally seen" DCIS because it was not measured.

Code 30 [In situ and invasive] in Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary. The single primary reported for this case is a combination of in situ and invasive tumors.

2009
20091032 Surgery of Primary Site--Ovary: How should this field be coded for an ovarian primary when there is a BSO and only the fundus of uterus is removed (not a full hysterectomy)? Assign surgery code 52 [Bilateral (salpingo-) oophorectomy; WITH hysterectomy]. Code 52 does not exclude a partial hysterectomy. 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
20091108 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How do we apply the MP/H rules if a pathologist states a patient has multiple reportable primaries after he compares an October 2006 RLL lung specimen with a March 2009 RML lung specimen? See Discussion. Patient had a right lung lobectomy (RLL) in Oct. 2006 diagnosed as adenocarcinoma. In March of 2009, two nodules in the right upper lobe were identified. Following a RUL wedge resection, the pathology report indicated: Two foci of M.D. adenocarcinoma with mixed mucinous and micropapillary and solid patterns. COMMENT: The present tumor is compared to the previous adenocarcinoma reviewed in 2006. Although there is some overlap in their appearance, the present tumor shows a much greater component of mucinous adenocarcinoma. Because there is some difference in the appearance, and the nodule is located in a separate lobe, this will be dictated as a separate lung primary.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is two primaries.

MPH General Instructions tell us a pathologist may decide when there is recurrence when comparing the current tumor to a previous specimen. In this case, the pathologist did the comparison and documented that the second tumor is NOT a recurrence but a new primary.

Histologies described by the terms "pattern" and "component" do not indicate a more specific type when applying the histology rules. The histology for the 2009 diagnosis is adenocarcinoma [8140/3]. Rule H3 applies.

2009
20091126 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Vagina: How many primaries should be abstracted for a patient with a complex history of multiple occurrences of vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VAIN III) between 2001 and 2008 and invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCCA) of the vagina diagnosed in 2006 and again in 2008? See Discussion. Patient had VAIN III in March of 2001. She had a partial vaginectomy and then continues to have laser surgery in 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2006 for recurrences. In 12/2006 she is diagnosed with SCCA of the vagina with microinvasion (new primary). Then in 2/2008 she has VAIN III again -- new primary according to rule M10 (more than 1 year later). An invasive SCCA of the vagina is again diagnosed in 9/2008. Is this another new primary per rule M15 (invasive after in situ)? Every instance in 2008 is called a recurrence, but we disregard that statement.

There are two primaries according to the information provided.

1. VAIN III March 2001.

2. SCCA of vagina Dec. 2006 (invasive tumor following an in situ

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the MP/H rules apply to new tumors, which means that there has been a disease-free interval at some point. In this case, the patient has never been declared disease-free (NED) using the information provided in the question. The consistent recurrence of VAIN is typical of this disease.

 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