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: 11/18/2025 16:27 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20071038 MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is it generally correct that the code for PNET [9473/3] should be used to code tumors arising in the brain and spinal cord, and the code for pPNET [9364/3] should be used to code tumors arising in the bone and soft tissue? See Discussion.

The terms and definitions for "Brain" in the 2007 MP/H rules distinguish between pPNET and PNET. Is it correct even when the diagnostic terminology alone would lead to other coding, such as "PNET" used to diagnose a soft tissue mass in the chest and "neuroectodermal tumor" used to diagnose a brain mass?

Should additional rules be added to both "Brain" and "Other Sites" to enforce this distinction?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Yes. Assign code 9473/3 for tumors arising in the brain and spinal cord and assign code 9364/3 for tumors arising in the bone and soft tissue.

Clarification and reinforcement of this distinction will be added to the "Other sites" terms and definitions with the first revision to the MP/H rules.

 2007
20071129

Reportability/Histology: Is a case reportable if the Final Diagnosis in a pathology report indicates a non reportable diagnosis but the Diagnosis Comment on the same report indicates a non reportable diagnosis followed by a reportable diagnosis in parenthesis? See Discussion.

08/13/2007 polypectomy final diagnosis: tubulovillous adenoma with severe epithelial atypia. Dx Comment (on same path) ...atypia including focal cribriform glandular architecture (carcinoma in situ).

This case is reportable as carcinoma in situ. The histology code is 8263/2 [adenocarcinoma in situ in a tubulovillous adenoma].

According to our pathologist consultant, a "comment" in a path report is a part of the diagnosis - it often elaborates on or clarifies the diagnosis. Placing [carcinoma in situ] in the comment, even in parentheses, indicates that is the appropriate diagnosis for our purposes.

 2007
20071052 CS Extension/CS Lymph Nodes--Lung: How are these fields coded if a lobectomy path specimen indicates that two intrapulmonary lymph nodes are involved by direct extension from the primary tumor?

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 regional lymph node involvement in CS lymph nodes even when the lymph nodes are involved by direct extension. Do not code direct extension to lymph nodes in CS extension.

 2007
20071042 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted when two tumors occur in one breast and both are ductal with the smaller tumor representing tubular carcinoma [variant]? See Discussion.

Right breast partial excision: Two invasive foci, one measuring 0.2cm and the second measuring 0.5cm. Both lesions are ductal carcinoma with the smaller representing tubular carcinoma (variant).

The breast histology table does not list tubular as a type of ductal, however, the pathologist states ductal carcinoma, tubular variant.

 For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is two primaries of the right breast, using the 2007 MP/H rules. For the purposes of the 2007 rules, tubular is not a specific type of duct. Duct carcinoma (8500) and tubular carcinoma (8211) are different at the second digit of the histology code. Rule M12 applies, making these separate primaries. 2007
20071107

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.

 2007
20071011 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted when each of multiple breast "re-excisions" performed more than two months apart in 2006 demonstrate intraductal carcinoma and there is no mention of "recurrence"? See Discussion.

Right Breast

06/27/2002 exc bx, DCIS. Margins involved.

09/24/2002 re-exc, several foci of intraductal ca. Margins involved.

10/15/2002 re-exc, microfocus of DCIS

Radiation treatment started 11/18/2002.

Is this 1, possibly 2, or maybe 3 breast primaries because of the 2 month rule and no statement of "recurrence"? Based on SINQ #20000478, this would be at least 2, but possible 3 primaries. Based on SINQ #20021143, this would be 1 primary if the case were diagnosed from 1998-2003. The excisions appear to represent wider excisions of the same tumor.

For cases diagnosed prior to 2013:

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007, this is one primary, assuming these are wider excisions of the same tumor.

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2007
20071111 MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How many primaries should be abstracted when a patient has an adenocarcinoma with bronchioalveolar-like features in the right upper lobe, adenocarcinoma in the right middle lobe and non-small cell carcinoma with clear cell features in the right lower lobe? See Discussion.

A RUL lung wedge resection and RML and RLL lobectomies were performed. The RUL resection showed invasive adenocarcinoma with bronchioalveolar-like features. Tumor size 9x.9x.8cm. The RLL lobectomy showed invasive non-small cell carcinoma with clear cell features. Tumor size 4.1x2.5x1.8cm. The RML lobectomy showed invasive adenocarcinoma. Tumor size 3.0x1.6x2.2cm.

Comment: Essentially three invasive tumors and a focus of bronchioalveolar carcinoma were identified in 3 specimens. All of the tumors appear somewhat histologically different. The larger tumors in the right upper and middle lobe were somewhat similar but still appear histologically different and therefore the pathologic staging is done based on all tumors being separate. The pathologic staging for this case is pT2(4) pN0 pMX.

What histology code and what site code are to be used on each abstract?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Abstract two primaries:

  1. C349 with histology coded to 8140 - invasive adenocarcinoma (RUL and RML)

  • C343 with histology coded to 8310 - invasive non-small cell carcinoma with clear cell features (RLL)

    • First, determine the number of tumors. There are three separate tumors in right lung in the example above:

    • RUL: invasive adenocarcinoma, bronchioalveolar-like features (8140, "-like" is not on the list of ambiguous terms used to code histology)

  • RLL: invasive non-small cell carcinoma with clear cell features (8310)

  • RML: invasive adenocarcinoma (8140)

    • Because there are three tumors, begin with rule M3 in the Multiple Tumors module. Stop at rule M11, multiple primaries for the tumor in the RLL (8310) compared to the tumors in the RUL and RML (8140 and 8140).

    Now evaluate the tumors in the RUL and RML using the multiple primary rules. Start at rule M3 and stop at rule M12, single primary.

    		 2007
    		20071071

    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.

    		 2007
    		20071066 Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: Can grade be coded from the pathology report for a recurrent bladder cancer specimen? See Discussion. In 2006 a TURB was done for bladder carcinoma diagnosed 10 years ago. Is grade always coded 9 on class 3 cases unless the original slides were reviewed?

    Code grade from the original tumor; do not code grade from recurrence.

    If the grade of the original primary tumor is specified, code it, regardless of class of case.

    		 2007
    		20071028 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.

    		 2007