Back to Search Results

Report Produced: 02/04/2023 17:29 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer (Descending)
20160002

MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Which is the correct histology code to use and which MP/H rule applies in the case of a single lumpectomy specimen that demonstrates two separate tumors with the following histologies.

1) Invasive lobular carcinoma

2) Invasive ductal carcinoma with tubular features

See discussion.

Does ductal carcinoma with tubular features qualify for Breast MP/H Rule H28? Or, is it more appropriate to strictly follow Table 2 (not a type of ductal tumor) and apply Rule H29, thus losing the lobular component?

Abstract a single primary using Rule M13. Assign 8523/3 using rule H29. The code for  invasive ductal carcinoma with tubular features (8523/3) is higher than the code for invasive lobular carcinoma (8520/3). H28 does not apply because 8523/3 is not included as a type of duct carcinoma on Table 2.

20210012

Solid Tumor Rules (2018, 2021/Multiple Primaries/)--Lung: How many primaries should be reported and what M rule applies when a diagnosis of presumed adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) of the left lung follows a known diagnosis of progressive multifocal malignant adenocarcinoma in the right lung? See Discussion.

Patient was initially diagnosed with a right lower lobe (RLL) lung adenocarcinoma in 2014 followed by subsequent right upper lobe (RUL) lung adenocarcinoma in 2016 (single primary). Both were treated with radiation and the nodules were seen as stable on surveillance. There was subsequent growth in the RUL nodule in 2019 and RLL nodule in 2020 as well as a new right middle lobe (RML) nodule in 2020. All left sided nodules were noted to be stable and/or ground glass opacities.

There was no documented diagnosis of malignancy in the left lung until June 2020 when the physician noted that if there was a response in the left lung to systemic treatment, then this was probably multifocal AIS. However, only one tumor in the left lung responded to treatment.

While it seems somewhat unlikely that only a single AIS in the contralateral lung should be metastasis from the right lung malignancy, it is difficult to apply the multiple tumors rules to this case.

Abstract a single primary using 2018 Lung Solid Tumor Rule M9.

The 2014 and 2016 R lung tumors were pathologically confirmed; it is not stated if they were resected. Follow up after XRT noted stable disease but no indication of NED. Subsequent right lung tumor is also the same primary. The issue is the assumed left lung adenocarcinoma in situ. It is not clear how long the left lung nodules were present, but they appeared to be stable as well and only diagnosed as a malignancy based on treatment response. At this time M9 applies and the left lung AIS is not a separate primary. We have discussed at length with lung pathology experts the issue of determining multiple primaries. Identifying and diagnosing lung tumors has become easier with new technology and the result is patients are being diagnosed with multiple lung tumors. Some lung experts feel we are under-reporting lung primaries but all noted the many issues with creating rules for consistency.

20190096

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Colon: Is a colorectal anastomotic site recurrence reportable, that is, a second primary, per Rule M7, third bullet, if there is no mention of mucosa but the tumor is seen on colonoscopy? See Discussion.

Colon, Rectosigmoid, and Rectum Multiple Primary Rule M7 states, Abstract multiple primaries when a subsequent tumor arises at the anastomotic site AND the subsequent tumor arises in the mucosa.

We identified tumors at the anastomotic site of previous colon primaries with no mention of mucosa in any of the available documentation. Are there any other indicators that would imply a tumor arising in the mucosa, or do we need this specific statement to consider these an additional primary?

Example: Patient has a history of invasive ascending colon adenocarcinoma diagnosed in October 2017 status post hemicolectomy followed by adjuvant chemo. There is no documentation of disease until August 2019 colonoscopy which shows a mass in the ileocolic anastomosis. Biopsy of the anastomotic site is positive for adenocarcinoma consistent with recurrence of the patient's colonic adenocarcinoma. There is no mention of mucosa found on the pathology report.

Abstract a single primary using 2018 Colon Solid Tumor Rule M8 in the example provided as there is a subsequent tumor occurring less than 24 months in the anastomotic site, with the same histology and no mention of mucosa.

The new tumor would be a new primary when it meets any one of the criteria noted in M7. The tumor does not have to be stated to have arisen in the mucosa. M8 also has three options to determine if a single primary is present.

20200022

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be reported for a December 2013 diagnosis of lobular carcinoma in situ (8520/2) in the left breast, treated with a lumpectomy, followed by a July 2018 diagnosis of invasive ductal carcinoma (8500/3) also in the left breast? See Discussion.

In the April and July 2019 updates to the Solid Tumor Rules, the term simultaneous and Note 1 indicating histologies must be the same behavior were removed from rule M10 (ductal and lobular are a single primary).

We would like to confirm that rule M10 is the correct rule to apply to this case. This case is an invasive diagnosis approximately 4.5 years after an in situ diagnosis, so it seems like M17 should apply (invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later are multiple primaries).

An invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later of the same histology is a new primary. Similarly, it seems like an invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later of different histologies should be a new primary.

Abstract a single primary using 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rule M10.

Unless the tumors were diagnosed more than 5 years apart, they are a single primary. The 2021 breast update will include examples and notes plus updating table 2.

20220047

Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Head and Neck:  Is a patient with 2020 neck mass, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), p16-negative, who then had a biopsy of the right tonsil (C09.9) in July 2022, SCC p16-positive, one or two primaries? Is this coded to 8070/3 using pre-2022 rules or a new, second primary p16-positive, 8085/3.  See Discussion.

History provided by the oncologist

Right neck mass since 2019; 04/07/20, initial biopsy p16-negative SCC, delay of treatment due to patient preference, agreed to biopsy of tonsil and work-up August 2022; right tonsil biopsy: p16-positive, G2 SCC, nodal mass at that time >6 cm with extensive extranodal extension, Stage III (cT2, cN3, cM0, p16-positive); based on this history, was staged as a tonsil primary and p16-positive.

Patient details

1. March 2020, CT neck and chest revealed a 0.5 x 2.7 x 2.3 cm low-density necrotic nodal mass at right neck level 2 suspicious for metastatic disease.  There was a slight asymmetric increased size of the right palatine tonsil.  There are a few sub-4 mm pulmonary nodules which are nonspecific.

2.  April 7, 2020, FNA of right neck mass with pathology revealed p16-negative SCC   

3.  April 20, 2020, PET/CT revealed 3 x 2 cm right-sided level 2 node with FDG avidity  

4.  May 5, 2020, flexible laryngoscopy showed no obvious primary lesion   

5.  May 2020, after evaluation by a medical oncology, patient declined any treatment  

6.  June 17, 2022, return visit in medical oncology after PET/CT demonstrates significant progression in the neck; patient definitively declines chemo, but would like surgical opinion.  Now has more rapidly progressive disease with skin breakdown and weeping from malignant lesion right neck.  

7.  June 22, 2022, radiation oncology consultation   

8.  July 15, 2022, tonsil biopsy: Invasive squamous cell carcinoma, moderately differentiated with LVI, p16-positive  

9.  Patient now agreeing to treatment with radiation: Tooth extractions 8/30/2022, radiation planning 9/14/2022  

10.  Patient consulted with cancer specialist who explained surgery is not recommended given level of extranodal extension and risk of seventh cranial nerve paralysis and fistula formation with surgical excision and who recommended chemoradiation

11.  September 9, 2022, patient presented for radiation CT simulation/treatment planning and informs treatment team. Patient declined/refuses concurrent chemotherapy despite recommendations from two cancer institutions.

Abstract a single primary of the tonsil. The diagnosis date is April 7, 2020. Assign 8070/3 for the histology.

Metastases were found in 2020 before the primary of tonsil was determined in 2022. The oncologist information confirms this.

20200012

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned for a patient diagnosed with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) with ring sideroblasts in 2005, and stated to have progressed to high risk disease/early evolving acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in 09/2019? See Discussion.

The bone marrow biopsy proved bone marrow with blasts comprising 15-19%. Neither the pathologist nor the physician specifically diagnosed this as AML, calling this only high risk disease or early evolving AML prior to starting the patient on Vidaza.

No further information can be obtained from the pathologist or the physician for this case. Should this early evolving AML be accessioned as an additional primary per Rule M10, or should this be considered the same MDS that is now high risk as the blast count is up to 19%, but has not yet reached the threshold of 20% blasts usually required for AML per the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Database?

Abstract a single primary as we do not abstract early/evolving AML. This is still one primary until there is a confirmed diagnosis of AML.

20160001

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries/Histology--Rectum: How many primaries does this person have and what is the correct histology? See discussion.

Rectal polyp excised in June, 2012, found to have adenocarcinoma in situ in a tubulovillous adenoma. Additional colorectal biopsies in November; all were negative. Another rectal polyp removed in December 2012 showing a tubulovillous adenoma with focal carcinoma in situ. Then, in February, 2013 another rectal polyp removed. This was diagnosed as mod. diff. adenocarcinoma with mucinous features, infiltrating into submucosa, seen in a background of tubulovillous adenoma. Surgical margins free (mucin %=40%). Finally, in May, 2013, a low anterior resection with no residual adenocarcinoma.

This appears to be adenocarcinoma in multiple adenomatous polyps (8221/3), although the final path from May 2013 described one benign polyp and said, 'no other masses, suspicious lesions or polyps are identified.' Going through the MP/H rules, both M13 and M14 result in this being a single primary, and come before the rule about an invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later is a new primary. The original abstract was coded C209 and 8263/2. If this is a single primary, should it be changed to 8221 with a behavior code of 3? Is this scenario another example of when to change the original diagnosis based on subsequent information?

Abstract a single primary and code as 8263/3. Other Sites rule M14 applies. The histology code is 8263/3 based on rules H28 and H12. Apply H28 first, make a second pass through the H rules and apply H12. See slide 18 in the "Beyond the Basics" presentation for applicable instructions on a similar situation, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/training_adv/SEER_MPH_Gen_Instruc_06152007.pdf

This case is an example of the need to update the original abstract based on more complete, subsequent, information.

20210022

Solid Tumor Rules (2018/2021)/Multiple primaries--Prostate: Is basal cell carcinoma with focal squamous differentiation and a small focus of infiltrating prostatic adenocarcinoma one or two primaries and if one, is the histology 8147/3? See Discussion.

Scenario: Patient had a transurethral resection of the prostate on 8-29-19, positive for basal cell carcinoma with focal squamous differentiation involving approximately 50% of tissue (determined not to be mets by consult). On 11-14-19, the patient had a prostatectomy positive for residual basal cell carcinoma and a small focus of infiltrating prostatic adenocarcinoma. According to AJCC, 8th edition, page 724, basal cell carcinoma of the prostate is 8147/3 and we ignored the small focus of adenocarcinoma. The above scenario was reported as two primaries (8090/3 and 8140/3), but we are thinking it is one.

Abstract a single primary and code as 8147/3 using Rule M18 and Rule H17 of the 2018 Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules. This is based on the findings of basal cell carcinoma of the prostate (8147/3) and adenocarcinoma (8140/3). We consulted with the Subject Matter Expert who advises that basal cell carcinoma and basal cell adenocarcinoma can be used interchangeably.

This updates previous consultation regarding this histology. The Other Sites rules will be updated for 2022 and include this information in the prostate histology table.

20190006

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: Please confirm Multiple Primaries/Histology Breast Rule M8 applies in this 2017 case. The surgical resection is >60 days past the biopsy date but is it possible treatment plans for breast could span >60 days and this is one primary? See Discussion.

7/25/17

Part A: Left breast at 8:00, 5 CFN: Specimen type: Stereotactic biopsy. Tumor type: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), cribriform type. Tumor size: The largest focus of DCIS measures 1 mm in greatest dimension as measured on the slide. Nuclear grade: 2 (Intermediate grade). Microcalcifications: Present. Other findings: Stromal fibrosis, microcalcification and fat necrosis.

11/1/17

A. Sentinel lymph node, left: One lymph node, negative for metastatic tumor on three levels of routine H\T\E and pan cytokeratin immunohistochemical stains.

B. Left breast: Procedure: Total mastectomy with skin and nipple. Specimen Laterality: Left. Lymph Node Sampling: Yes, portion A. Specimen Integrity: Intact. Histologic Type: Extensive ductal carcinoma in situ and one focus of Invasive ductal carcinoma with mucinous features. Histologic Grade (Nottingham Histologic Score): Glandular Differentiation: Score 3 Nuclear Grade: Score 2. Mitotic Count: Score 1. Total Nottingham score 6 (grade 2, moderately differentiated). Tumor Size: 3.3 x 2 mm (0.33 x 0.2 cm) measured on slide (B3). Tumor Site: Lower inner quadrant of left breast. Tumor Focality: Unifocal. Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS): Present, cribriform, solid and micropapillary types with focal necrosis and calcifications. Size of DCIS: Number of blocks examined: Thirty (30). Number of blocks with DCIS: Thirteen (13). Lobular Carcinoma In Situ (LCIS): Not identified, Lymphovascular Invasion: Present. Perineural Invasion: Not identified. Other Findings: Changes consistent with previous biopsy site. Cysts, foci of atypical ductal hyperplasia, focal ductal hyperplasia, adenosis, stromal fibrosis and microcalcifications. Skin (epidermis): Uninvolved. Nipple: Uninvolved. Margins: 1 mm from DCIS to the closest deep margin (slide B12). At least 10 mm (1 cm) from invasive carcinoma to deep margin. Estrogen receptor (ER, clone 1D5) by immunohistochemistry performed on this material: Positive (invasive and in situ carcinoma), high intensity, in greater than 95% of carcinoma cells. Progesterone receptor (PR, clone 16) by immunohistochemistry performed on this material: Positive (invasive and in situ carcinoma), moderate intensity in about 80% of the carcinoma cells. Her 2 by FISH performed on this material: Pending, an addendum to follow. Pathologic staging: pT1aN0(sn)MX (AJCC 7th edition). Dictated by: (Pathologist), MD Intradepartmental review.

Abstract a single breast primary. Apply MP/H Rule M3 as this is a single tumor identified in the biopsy at 8 o'clock and at the same location in the mastectomy specimen. Code the behavior as invasive according to rule H9.

The first course of therapy ends when the documented treatment plan is completed, no matter how long, unless there is progression, recurrence, or treatment failure.

20200008

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Corpus uteri: How many primaries are accessioned for patient with a minimally invasive endometrial adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp in 2001, followed by a metastatic poorly differentiated clear cell carcinoma of gynecologic (GYN) origin in 2019? See Discussion.

The patient has a history of a minimally invasive endometrial adenocarcinoma that was low grade and confined to an endometrial polyp in 2001. The patient underwent a total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAH/BSO) that entirely removed the tumor at that time.

Almost 18 years later, the patient had a left inguinal mass excision that was, Carcinoma of gynecologic origin, consistent with clear cell carcinoma. No other disease was found, the physician never indicated whether this was felt to be metastatic from the previous, low grade adenocarcinoma or not. It was only noted as, an unusual malignancy of the left lower quadrant and inguinal region of gynecologic origin. No further information was available in the medical record or from the physician on follow-up.

Although neither the Solid Tumor Rules nor the MPH Rules (still in use for the Other Sites schema) apply to metastasis, given the differences in histology and behavior of these two tumors (i.e., minimally invasive, low grade disease diagnosed in 2001 vs. higher grade, more aggressive tumor in 2019) should the current clear cell carcinoma of GYN origin really be considered the same primary as the 2001 endometrial adenocarcinoma?

Abstract a multiple primaries using 2018 Other Sites Solid Tumor Rule M10 as these tumors are more than one year apart. This represents endometrioid adenocarcinoma (8380/3 of C541) and 18 years later, clear cell Carcinoma (8310/3 consistent with GYN (C579) primary).