Report Produced: 01/26/2023 20:28 PM
|Report||Question ID||Question||Discussion||Answer (Ascending)|
|20031147||Reason No Cancer-Directed Surgery--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is this field always coded to 1 [not performed, not part of first course] for leukemias & other hematopoietic diseases?||For cases diagnosed 2003 and later: For sites where "Surgery of the primary site" is coded 00 or 98 (hematopoietic included), Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site should be coded as 1 [Surgery of the primary site not performed because it was not part of the planned first course of treatment]. On rare occasions, there may be surgery to the primary site for a hematopoietic disease, such as an excisional biopsy of a myeloid sarcoma. Refer to the "Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases" for cell-type-specific treatment information.|
|20010029||Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: Can "Fuhrman nuclear grade" be coded if it is the only grade given for a kidney primary, or is breast the only site for which we can use a nuclear grade in coding the Grade, Differentiation field? See discussion.||
Our pathologist consultant disagrees with coding nuclear grade for any site because it is only a component of the grade, in most cases, and is not adequate to use by itself.
If the Fuhrman nuclear grade system can be used by coders, will a conversion table for the system be added to the coding documentation by SEER in the future?
|For cases diagnosed 2004 and later: Fuhrman grade can be used to code the Grade, Differentiation field.|
|20100007||MP/H Rules/Histology--Melanoma: Regarding SINQ #20081044, when would you apply Rule H6 rather than Rule H5 for a cutaneous malignant melanoma given that you normally always have a specific cell type mentioned?||For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule H6 is used when you do not have a specific cell type other than regressing melanoma, or malignant melanoma, regressing. If you have regressing melanoma with a specific cell type, apply rule H5.|
|20091116||MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries - - Colon: Is a colon tumor reported as "recurrent at the anastomotic junction" just over one year after the diagnosis of a T4 colon tumor to be counted as a new primary? See Discussion.||
MP/H rules do not apply to metastasis. However, it has been our experience that pathologists and clinicians tend to use the terms metastatic and recurrence interchangeably. The term "recurrence" is not limited to a tumor recurrence in the same site as a previous malignancy. Sometimes it is obvious that the clinician is using the term recurrence to describe a metastatic lesion. When a "recurrence" is located in tissue that is very different from the original primary site, it is easy to recognize that the intended meaning of the term is metastasis.
Example: Patient with squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue with recurrence in the lung.
However, when the metastatic deposit occurs in similar tissue, it is more difficult to determine the number of primaries.
Example when the term "recurrence" is ambiguous: In April 2008 patient was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the ascending colon. At the time of hemicolectomy the tumor was noted to be plastered into the paraduodenal and peripancreatic area. Patient received one dose of adjuvant chemo and then discontinued treatment. In May 2009 the patient was found to have adenocarcinoma in the transverse colon. Per the pathology report the diagnosis for segmental resection at that time showed colonic adenocarcinoma. Tumor location: tumor appears recurrent at anastomotic junction. Abdominal wall mass showed metastatic adenocarcinoma.
One has to wonder if the pathologist found a metastatic nodule at the anastomotic site and called it "recurrent." It is unlikely that the pathologist will compare this specimen to the previous tumor, having already diagnosed it as "recurrent."
|For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M4 applies to the example of adenocarcinoma of ascending colon diagnosed in 2008 followed by adenocarcinoma of transverse colon diagnosed in 2009. When a colon resection has taken place, the original primary site is no longer present. A colon resection usually includes a portion of uninvolved colon on either side of the tumor. A tumor diagnosed at the anastomotic junction cannot be located in the same site as the previous tumor. Use of the term "recurrent" in this case is not synonymous with "metastatic." Apply the MP/H rules.|
|20100025||MP/H Rules/Primary site--Kidney, Renal Pelvis: Should the primary site be changed to C689 [Urinary system, NOS] for a primary renal pelvis tumor after additional tumors are found months later in different urinary sites (e.g., bladder or ureter) and the MP/H Rules indicate these are all the same primary? See Discussion.||In a patient is diagnosed 1/29/08 with an invasive grade 3 of 3 papillary urothelial cell carcinoma arising in the depth of a calyx in mid portion of kidney, the primary site was coded C659 [Renal pelvis]. In 6/1/09 a TURBT showed three separate lesions on the right side of the bladder. The final diagnosis was high grade urothelial carcinoma in-situ with three tumors, the largest being 7mm. Per rule M8, the renal pelvis primary and subsequent bladder tumors are considered the same primary. Would the primary site be changed to C689 [Urinary system, NOS] when the bladder tumors were identified? Or is C689 only coded if more than one primary site is involved at diagnosis?||For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M8 applies. This is a single primary. The primary site was coded to C659 in 2008. Do not change the primary site code.|
|20081036||MP/H Rules--Breast: Is inflammatory breast cancer always one primary per lifetime? Or is a subsequent inflammatory breast cancer a second primary if diagnosed more than five years later?||For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, a diagnosis of inflammatory breast cancer more than five years after a previous diagnosis of inflammatory breast cancer is a separate (new) primary. See rule M5 in the Breast Multiple Primary Rules.|
|20081063||MP/H Rules--Breast: How many primaries should be abstracted when a patient has a mass at 6:00 that showed poorly differentiated ductal carcinoma and a hypoechoic nodule at 9:00 that was excised with no real tumor present there though path showed angiolymphatic invasion by carcinoma throughout the entire specimen? See Discussion.||
Palpable mass in right breast at 6:00. Path stated 'poorly differentiated ductal carcinoma with extensive necrosis and extensive angiolymphatic invasion. Focal high grade comedocarcinoma (1%)'. Another hypoechoic nodule was seen at the 9:00 position. This mass was excised from surrounding tissue. This mass was more like an inflammatory mass; there was no real tumor present there. Path report stated "Breast mass 9:00 excisional biopsy - angiolymphatic invasion by mammary carcinoma throughout the entire specimen."
Is this two primaries because of the two different histology codes: 8500 and 8010?
|For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract as a single primary using rule M3 (a single tumor is always a single primary). There was one tumor present according to the information provided. The second specimen was not a separate tumor ("There was no real tumor present there").|
|20081026||MP/H rules/Multiple primaries: Is a 2007 cytology diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in bile duct a new primary for a patient with a 2005 diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of gallbladder? See Discussion.||
A case abstracted for an adenocarcinoma of gallbladder (C23.9) in 2005. In 2007, cytology diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in bile duct(C24.0). Oncologist calls this recurrence. There is no pathologist statement of recurrence.
Using Other Sites multiple primary rules, rule M10 indicates this is multiple primaries. Sequence 01 dx in 2005 and sequence 02 dx in 2007. Is this correct? There is no statement of a primary tumor; the MP/H rules talk in terms of mass, lesion, tumor in a primary site.
|For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract the 2007 bile duct diagnosis as a new primary unless it is described as metastatic.|
|20091096||MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be reported when an in situ diagnosis is followed by an invasive diagnosis in the same breast 1.5 years later? See Discussion.||Patient had a core biopsy 1/07 that showed DCIS and PE showed no adenopathy. Patient refused resection, and adjuvant treatment. In 6/08, the pt returned for a modified radical mastectomy which showed infiltrating duct carcinoma and positive lymph nodes. A comment in the Correction Record stated "Per MD, patient did not see any urgency and delayed surgery 1.5 years after diagnosis." The patient did not have any treatment in that time period and there is no statement that there was progression.||For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract the 6/08 invasive diagnosis as a separate primary according to rule M8. Rule M8 applies whether or not the later diagnosis in this case is progression of disease.|
|20071009||MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries/Laterality--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are to be abstracted and how is laterality to be coded for two meningiomas, one occurring at the midline and the other in the right termporal region? See Discussion.||MRI of the brain shows two meningiomas: One is stated to be 'midline' (laterality code 9) and one is stated to be in the 'right' temporal region. The rules state if same site (C700), same histology & laterality is same side or one side unknown, then abstract as single primary. Based on this, the MRI findings would be one primary, but how should laterality be coded?||For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract two primaries. The lateralities of both meningiomas are known. Right (code 1) and midline (code 9) are different lateralities.|