MP/H Rules/Recurrence: Is a subsequent diagnosis of an in situ tumor (bladder cancers excluded) a "recurrence" if it follows a prior invasive diagnosis of the original primary cancer made 5 years before?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use the 2007 MP/H rules to determine whether or not a subsequent diagnosis (either invasive or in situ) is a new primary or a recurrence. Do not use the statement "recurrence" from the medical record to make this decision.
When evaluating a subsequent diagnosis and the MP/H rules indicate "single primary," the tumor being evaluated is a "recurrence" of the original primary cancer.
Reportability/Terminology--Prostate: Is the diagnosis of "atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma" sufficient to report a prostate cancer if a note states that there is "insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy"? See Discussion.
Date of report is July 2005. One positive specimen of 12.
Specimen 6: Diagnosis = Prostate tissue with a small focus of atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma. Note. There is insufficient cytologic and/or architectural atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy. Negative basal cell staining with cytokeratin... in atypical glands is consistent with the diagnosis of suspicious for adenocarcinoma. In addition, the diagnosis is suppported by a positive staining for alpha-methyl COA racemase (P504S), a recently discovered marker that is preferentially expressed in prostate cancer...
This case is reportable. The diagnosis states "suspicious for adenocarcinoma." "Suspicious for" is a reportable ambiguous term.
The additional stains supported this "suspicious" diagnosis. A more definitive diagnosis could not be made based on this specimen.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: If a tubulovillous (TV) adenoma is in situ and other polyp(s) have an invasive component, does the in situ TV adenoma still have priority and should rule H18 be applied?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, always give precedence to coding the invasive. Rule H18 applies UNLESS the adenocarcinoma in the TV is in situ and the others are invasive. In this case, code the histology of the invasive adenocarcinoma.
This clarification will be added when the MP/H manual is revised.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: Regarding histology rule H21, is there a hierarchy or do you code the higher histology if there is an adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp and an adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
If you arrive at H21 and have an additional decision to make regarding the use of 8210, 8261 or 8263, you must make another pass through the histology rules. The second pass will determine which of the two or three histology codes to assign. The answer will vary depending of the specifics of the case.
Example:
Transverse colon: Adenocarcinoma in an adenomatous polyp involving muscularis propria and adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma involving subserosa of transverse colon. Start with rule H15 because there are multiple tumors. Stop at H21 -- code either 8210 or 8261. To decide between 8210 and 8261, make a second pass through the histology rules, starting again with H15. Stop at H20. Code the histology of the most invasive tumor, 8210 [Adenocarcinoma in adenomatous polyp].
Histology--Corpus uteri: Because coding a pathology final diagnosis of "serous carcinoma" for an endometrial primary to 8441/3 triggers the site/histology error in the SEER Edits, should histology be coded to 8010/3 [Carcinoma, NOS] instead?
Assign histology code 8441 [serous carcinoma] and override the edit. Endometrium with serous carcinoma is NOT one of the "impossible" site / histology combinations.
MP/H Rules--Urinary: How many primaries are abstracted when a patient has a May 2000 invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder, a November 2004 invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the right ureter and a May 2007 urothelial carcinoma in situ of both the left and right ureters?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Using the pre-2007 multiple primary rules, the PTCC of the bladder in 2000 and the invasive TCC of the right ureter in Nov. 2004 would have been abstracted as separate primaries.
Use the 2007 MP/H rules to evaluate the May 2007 diagnosis. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M8. The May 2007 diagnosis is the same primary.
Rule M4 does not apply because of the 2000 bladder primary. A clarification will be added to M4 to stress that for the urinary rules, any urinary tumor up to the present point in time is counted when applying this rule.
CS Tumor Size/CS Extension--Prostate: Because prostatectomy results are excluded from the CS Extension field for prostate, is code 95 [No evidence of primary tumor] accurate to reflect bilateral lobe involvement of prostate cancer when it is incidentally found following a radical cystectomy for a bladder primary? Why must tumor size be 000 when the CS Extension code is 95?
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 prostate CS Extension to 99 [Extension unknown] and code CS Tumor Size according to the information available from the surgery.
CS Extension code 95 [No evidence of primary tumor] should be used only in that rare situation when the only evidence of disease is distant mets or lymph node involvement, no primary tumor found. That is why CS tumor Size must be 000 when CS Extension code 95 is used.
Primary Site: Is an "angiosarcoma" stated as arising in the skin of the breast and treated with a mastectomy, coded to the primary site of skin or breast?
Code the primary site as skin of breast when skin of breast is documented as the site of origin.
According to the WHO classification of soft tissue tumors, the majority of angiosarcomas "develop as cutaneous tumors...less than one quarter present as a deep soft tissue mass."
Multiplicity Counter--Breast: How should the multiplicity counter be coded for a 3.8 cm infiltrating duct carcinoma with two "satellite nodules" measuring 5 mm and 7mm that are not described as either metastases or multiple foci?
Include these nodules in the multiplicity counter because they are measured and are part of the final diagnosis on the pathology report.
MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: If the biopsy for a lung primary is actually taken from a pleural mass, can the default rule "when there are several lung masses and only one lesion is biopsied, consider this a single primary" apply? See Discussion.
Scenario: A parenchymal lesion in each lung. One lung also has a pleural lesion. MD biopsies the pleural mass only and it is positive for cancer.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Do not assume the biopsy of the pleural mass is a biopsy of the lung. Apply the 2007 MP/H Lung rules to the lung tumors only. For this case, the pleural lesion would be a metastasis (outside the lung). The 2007 MP/H rules do not apply to metastatic lesions.
The 2007 MP/H Lung rules do not apply to pleura as a primary site. If the pleural lesion is primary, it should be abstracted as a separate primary.
An official website of the United States government
Home