Back to Search Results

Report Produced: 02/01/2023 08:40 AM

Report Question ID Question (Descending) Discussion Answer

MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: Should the term "dedifferentiation" be used to code sarcomatoid transitional cell carcinoma (8122/3)? Or is this typically referring to the grade, and not the histologic subtype? See Discussion.

Pathology report Final Diagnosis: TURBT : Urothelial carcinoma, high grade. Type/grade comment: Extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation is present (40-50% of tumor volume).

Assign 8122/3 for urothelial carcinoma, extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation. Sarcomatoid dedifferentiation refers to the histologic type. 8122/3 is also correct for the following diagnoses.

         Urothelial carcinoma, sarcomatoid carcinoma or sarcomatoid variant  8122/3

         Urothelial carcinoma with sarcomatoid features  8122/3



MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: Is urothelial carcinoma, high-grade, predominantly solid type, coded as 8120/3 or 8230/3? See Discussion.

Urinary bladder: Invasive urothelial carcinoma, high-grade, 4.5cm, predominantly solid type, arising in background of carcinoma in-situ, carcinoma grossly extends into perivesical adipose tissue; lymph-vascular invasion is seen.

Assign histology code 8120/3, urothelial carcinoma, NOS. Solid type is not a recognized variant of urothelial tumors and likely represents the appearance of the urothelial cells within the tumor and not a specific histologic type.


MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: Can the histology for a high grade urothelial carcinoma described as having "extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation" be coded to sarcomatoid transitional cell carcinoma (8122/3)?

Example; TURBT, Final Diagnosis - Urothelial carcinoma, high grade. Type/grade comment: Extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation is present (40-50% of tumor volume).

Code high grade urothelial carcinoma described as having "extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation" to sarcomatoid transitional cell carcinoma (8122/3).


MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: Can information from the CAP checklist that indicates, Tumor configuration: papillary be used to code histology to 8130 [papillary urothelial carcinoma] if the final diagnosis is also stated to be Bladder rumor: urothelial carcinoma and the pathologist stages the case as pTa [noninvasive papillary carcinoma]?

For cases diagnosed 2007 to 2017 ONLY: Code the histology as papillary urothelial carcinoma [8130].NOTE: In the CAP checklist, the statement that the tumor has a papillary configuration is a further description of this tumor. This is supported by the pathologist's stage of pTa [noninvasive papillary carcinoma]. Use the information from the CAP checklist when available. The MP/H Rules will be revised to include the term "configuration" in the specific histology terms for in situ tumors.

The steps used to arrive at this decision are

Step 1: Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. Choose one of the three (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) and go to the Urinary Histo rules. The module you use depends on the behavior and number of tumors identified in the primary site. In this case, the patient has a single bladder tumor per the submitted information.

Step 2: Start at Rule H1 in the Single Tumor module. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order from Rule H1 to Rule H15. Stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing. Stop at Rule H7. Code the histology as 8130/2 (noninvasive papillary urothelial carcinoma) when the urothelial carcinoma is stated to have a papillary configuration.

For cases diagnosed 2018 or later, refer to the Solid Tumor Rules,


MP/H Rules/Histology--Appendix: What is the histology for an appendix resection diagnosis of "Malignant neoplasm of the appendix with the following features: Histologic type: Adenocarcinoma ex goblet cell carcinoid with mucin production (adenocarcinoma arising from goblet cell carcinoid)"? Is this histology best coded to a mixed adenocarcinoma/carcinoid tumor (8244/3)?

Code histology to combined carcinoid and adenocarcinoma (8244/3). The tumor is a mix of adenocarcinoma and carcinoid.


MP/H Rules/Behavior--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted for a patient with a history of left breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) diagnosed in 2014 and bone lesions showing metastatic carcinoma consistent with a breast primary in 2017? See Discussion.

Patient was diagnosed with DCIS of the left breast in June 2014. The patient had a simple mastectomy with 2 axillary lymph nodes removed. The final diagnosis was intermediate to high grade ductal carcinoma in situ, predominantly micropapillary type, forming a 1.4 cm mass. No invasive carcinoma identified. Margins negative. In April 2017, the patient was found to have parietoccipital bone lesions, which were resected. The resulting diagnosis was metastatic carcinoma, morphologically consistent with breast primary " See Comment: The previous breast lesion is not available for review at the time of signout. However, the tumor is morphologically compatible with a breast primary.

SINQ 20110111 would not make this is new primary. However, it seems that rule M8 might apply. An invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days after diagnosis is a multiple primary. See Note 2: Abstract as multiple primaries even if the medical record/physician states it is recurrence or progression of disease.

Assuming there were no other breast or any other tumors for this patient, change the behavior code to /3 on the original abstract for the 2014 breast primary.

Similar to SINQ 20110111, there was likely a focus of invasion present in the original tumor that was not identified by the pathologist. The behavior code on the original abstract must be changed from a /2 to a /3 and the stage must be changed from in situ to localized.

The MP/H rules do not apply to metastases. Therefore, rule M8 cannot be used.


MP/H Rules/Behavior--Appendix: How do you code mucinous cancers of the appendix? Is a "low grade mucinous appendix tumor/neoplasm" with peritoneal spread considered reportable? See Discussion.

Low grade mucinous neoplasms can spread to the peritoneal cavity and in that sense are metastatic but histologically have bland/benign features (may be a benign cystadenoma that ruptured and spread by rupturing) are not a carcinoma. Thus, some have termed this group as DPAM (diseminated peritoneal adenomucinous) and not a true carcinoma. Others indicate that if you have metastasis the tumor is a carcinoma.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, low-grade mucinous tumors of the appendix are a /1, borderline/uncertain behavior, and not reportable. These tumors do spread to the peritoneal cavity (pseudomyxoma peritonei). This spread, or deposits, or implants are also borderline/uncertain behavior and do not make the appendiceal tumor reportable. By contrast, a high-grade mucinous tumor of the appendix may produce malignant/invasive pseudomyxoma peritonei. When the pseudomyxoma peritonei are diagnosed as invasive or malignant, the mucinous tumor in the appendix is reportable as a /3.


MP/H Rules--Lung: Per rule M8, tumors of the same site (left lung), same histology (NSCC), greater than 3 yrs apart are separate primaries.

However, there was a recurrence to mediastinal LNs after 2 years. Would that make a difference as to whether the 2008 left lung carcinoma is reportable as a new primary or not? See Discussion.

Scenario: NSCC 2004 LLL with positive hilar/mediastinal LNs treated with LLL lobectomy, chemo and rad. 2006 per CT/PET recurrence in mediastinal LNs treated with chemoradiation. 2008 left lung nodule positive for NSCC stated by MD to be recurrence from 2004 (2008 path not compared to 2004 path).

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

The 2008 lung carcinoma is a separate primary according to rule M8. The 2006 diagnosis is metastases to the lymph nodes. Do not apply the MP/H rules to metastases.


MP/H Rules--Histology: How is histology coded when a metastatic site is biopsy positive for adenocarcinoma, but the physician clinically states this is cholangiocarcinoma? See discussion.

The patient underwent a PTA biopsy of a lytic mass showing metastatic adenocarcinoma. Imaging revealed a large hepatic mass consistent with cholangiocarcinoma. The physician's impression on a physical exam note was the PTA biopsy was most consistent with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. However, the PTA pathology report was reviewed at this facility and the final diagnosis was not stated to be cholangiocarcinoma, only adenocarcinoma, NOS.

The priority order for coding histology rules in the MP/H Manual indicates pathology has priority over documentation in the medical record. Following the rules in the MP/H Manual, the histology would be coded as 8140 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS]. While this may be technically correct, it seems that intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is often diagnosed as adenocarcinoma on biopsy, but further stated to be cholangiocarcinoma by the physician once other primary sites have been excluded. By applying the rules in the MP/H Manual, cases that seem better characterized as cholangiocarcinomas are being collected as adenocarcinoma, NOS. Should the histology be adenocarcinoma [8140/3] or cholangiocarcinoma [8160/3] for these cases?

When the physician has reviewed all of the pertinent information, and the physician's opinion is documented stating that the histology is cholangiocarcinoma, code cholangiocarcinoma.

A pathology report from a primary site has the highest priority for coding histology; however, there is no such pathology report in this case. We will review the histology coding instructions and add clarification in the next version.


MP/H Rules--Breast: How many primaries for the following?

Breast lumpectomy: Three foci of invasive ductal carcinoma.

Tumor nodule #1 - Invasive ductal carcinoma.

Tumor nodule #2 - Invasive ductal carcinoma with tubular features.

Tumor nodule #3 - Invasive tubular carcinoma.

See Discussion.

According to the MP/H rules, this case is reportable as three primaries with histologies coded 8500, 8523 and 8211. However, our QC staff is having a problem accepting this. When the pathologist specifies that a ductal carcinoma has tubular features or is tubular type, isn't he saying that tubular is a type of duct? In addition, the first line of the FDx states, "Three foci of ductal carcinoma," which indicates that the pathologists considers the three nodules to be ductal carcinoma.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

These three tumors are three separate primaries. Rule M12 applies.

According to the 2007 MP/H rules, tubular carcinoma is not a type of duct carcinoma.

Among the paramount reasons for writing the MP/H rules are the non-standard usage of nomenclature by physicians and the inconsistency in interpretation of these non-standard phrases. The MP/H rules must be applied consistently by each cancer registrar in order for data to be comparable across registries.