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: 02/22/2026 13:22 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
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
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
20091063 CS Lymph Nodes--Head and Neck: How is this field coded when a positive neck FNA is followed by a neck dissection that contains one of seventeen positive lymph nodes? See Discussion. The primary site is the right tongue. The patient underwent FNA of a right neck mass that was positive for squamous cell carcinoma. Subsequent right modified radical neck dissection showed one out of seventeen nodes positive for metastatic carcinoma. For head and neck primaries, the CS LN codes 10-19 represent a single positive ipsilateral regional node. Codes 20-29 represent multiple positive ipsilateral nodes.

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.If the neck dissection included the area of the positive FNA, count only the positive nodes from the dissection. Avoid double-counting a positive node for both an FNA and a dissection.

In the unlikely event that the dissection did not include the area of the positive FNA, add one positive node to the count from the dissection.

This instruction supersedes previous instructions.

 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
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
20091104 MP/H Rules/Histology--Esophagus: How is histology coded for a biopsy of the esophagus with a pathologic diagnosis of "adenocarcinoma, intestinal type" when there is no evidence of a gastric tumor in scans or EDG? See Discussion. There is a rule for colon to disregard "intestinal type" and code to adenocarcinoma (8140) but no rule for esophagus. How should histology for this esophageal case be coded?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Follow MP/H Other Sites Rule H11 and code 8144/3 [Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type]. Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type, is called that because it resembles the normal pattern of adenocarcinoma seen in the large intestines. It is not an indication of the location of the adenocarcinoma. We find that it is not uncommon in the sinuses, stomach, lungs, cervix, and many other organs.

 2009
20091049 P/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung/Breast: Can we assume that a current tissue specimen is a recurrence of previous primary if a pathologist states that he has compared the current specimen with the slides from the prior tumor and concludes that the current tumor is "similar" to a previous tumor? See Discussion.

The MP/H rule general information section states that we do not accession a second primary unless a pathologist compares the current tumor to the original tumor and states that the current tumor is a recurrence of cancer from the previous primary. In our experience it is rare that a pathologist speaks so bluntly. They frequently hedge somewhat.

Are the following statements worded strongly enough for us to make the assumption that the current tumor is a recurrence of patient's previous cancer?

Example 1: Pathologist states: Patient's prior lung tumor reviewed. The tumor in the current case (left lower lobe) shows similarities to some areas of the patient's prior left lower lobe tumor.

Example 2: Pathologist states: The focus of ductal carcinoma in the mastectomy specimen does resemble the carcinoma in the previous partial mastectomy specimen. (Slides reviewed).

All pathologists do not use words in the same way. Therefore, we will not provide a list of specific words to accept or not to accept in order to determine recurrence. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, do not base your decision about recurrence on words such as "similar" or "resembles." If the pathologist believes two or more tumors are the same or believes one is a recurrence of another after comparison, accept it. When pathologists believe that two or more tumors are not the same or believe that one is not a recurrence of another, there is usually a strong statement indicating that opinion. 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
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
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