MP/H Rules--Lung: Why the term "nodule" is not included as an equivalent term along with tumor, mass, lesion and neoplasm in the 2007 lung multiple primary rules?
Answer revised July 2008
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
For the purpose of applying the Lung MP/H rules, the word "Nodule" can be used interchageably with "Tumor," "Mass," "Lesion" and "Neoplasm." HOWEVER, this does NOT apply to casefinding or staging.
This revision will be added to the next version of the MP/H rules. Sinq question 20071028 will be revised.
Primary Site: For malignant gastrointestinal tumors (GISTs), how should the primary site be coded and which Collaborative Stage and TNM staging schemes should be used for disease found in the stomach, small intestine or other locations?
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 primary site to the location where the GIST originated. If the primary site cannot be determined, assign code C809 [Unknown primary site].
GIST of gastrointestinal hollow viscera cannot be staged in TNM.
In Collaborative Staging, use the stomach scheme for GIST of the stomach. Use the small intestine scheme for GIST of the small intestine. For GIST of other primary sites, use the CS scheme for the specific site.
Date of Conclusive Terminology: Is there an applicable timeframe when coding this field?
There is no strict timeframe for Date of Conclusive Terminology. The diagnosis using conclusive terminology could be made any time following the diagnostic work-up.
The date of conclusive terminology is related to code 2 [ambiguous term followed by conclusive term] in the data item "Ambiguous terminology." Assign code 2 when a conclusive diagnosis is made 60 days or more after a diagnosis using ambiguous terminology. Record the date of the conclusive diagnosis in "Date of Conclusive Terminology."
MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: If the abstractor only has the CAP protocol information from a pathology report and it does not include a "final diagnosis" label, which fields of the protocol are used to determine the histology and whether there is carcinoma in situ present in the specimen?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, if the CAP protocol is used in lieu of a final diagnosis, use all of the information in the CAP protocol.
Radiation Therapy: How is radiation coded when it is "recommended" but the patient dies before radiation is started? See Discussion.
Code 0 seems appropriate but then we would lose the fact that it had been recommended. All of the other modalities give an option for 'recommended but patient died prior to treatment.' Is there a reason this option is not given for radiation?
Code Radiation (Rx Summ--Radiation) to 0 [None; diagnosed at autopsy].
SEER does not collect the Reason For No Radiation field. However, those who abstract using software that captures this data item can identify these cases. Code 5 [radiation not administered because patient died] reflects this situation.
Radiation (Rx Summ-Radiation) is a SEER field. This field is derived from the data collected in Rad-Boost Rx Modality and Rad-Regional TX Modality. These fields do not include a choice for "radiation not given because the patient died prior to treatment." Therefore, this information cannot be coded in the Radiation field.
MP/H Rules/Multiplicity Counter--Lung: If metastatic tumors are not counted in this field, should the multiplicity counter be coded to 01 for a case with a primary left lower lobe of lung tumor with a satellite tumor in the left upper lobe?
For cases diagnosed 2007-2013:
No, code multiplicity counter to 02 [two tumors present]. According to the multiple primary rules, these two lung tumors are reported as a single primary. Record the number of tumors reported as a single primary in Multiplicity Counter.
Multiplicity Counter no longer required by SEER as of 1/1/2013.
MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Bladder/Renal Pelvis: Is a non-invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder diagnosed one year after the occurrence of an invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the renal pelvis reported as one or two primaries?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
This is a single primary with renal pelvis as primary site.
Use the 2007 MP/H rules to determine if the 2007 diagnosis is a new primary. Use the Urinary rules, multiple tumors module. Start with rule M3. Follow the rules down to Rule M8 and stop. This is an example of implantation effect.
Reporting Source: If the only patient record available for a physician office biopsy is the pathology report identified from a freestanding laboratory, is reporting source coded to 3 [Laboratory Only (hospital-affiliated or independent)] or 4 [Physicians office/Private Medical Practitioner (LMD)]? See Discussion.
A case was identified through a pathology report from a freestanding lab. The doctor who submitted the specimen left the state. His records cannot be located. Because the patient had the specimen removed at a physician's office, not at a path lab, is Type of Reporting Source field coded to the physicians office?
Reporting Source is the source that provided the best information used to abstract the case.
For this case, assign code 3 [Laboratory Only (hospital-affiliated or independent)]. Reporting source should reflect the lab where this case was identified. The MD office added nothing to the case, not even a confirmation of malignancy.
MP/H Rules/Recurrence--Breast: If the pathologist and oncologist call a 2007 lobular carcinoma that appears in a skin nodule of a mastectomy scar a recurrence of a patient's 1975 primary breast duct carcinoma, should we abstract this as a new primary? See Discussion.
According to the pathologist and oncologist, the change in histology is attributed to the present availability of E-cadherin, which was not available in 1975.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract the 2007 diagnosis as a separate primary using rule M5.
Rule M5 applies to this case because it comes before rule M12. Furthermore, based on your statement, the answer presumes that the original tumor was duct carcinoma only, there was no lobular carcinoma present. This must be a new primary because there are two different histologies.
The 2007 MP/H rules were developed with input from clinicians. They advised that a subsequent breast tumor more than five years later is a new primary. It is important to apply the rules so that these cases are handled in a consistant manner across all registries.
An official website of the United States government
Home