Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20091025 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: How should we handle urinary tract tumors diagnosed before the MP rules went into effect when determining the number of primaries to report primaries? How do you apply rules M5, M6 and M8 when an invasive bladder tumor and other urinary site tumors occur before and after the effective date of these rules? See Discussion. |
Example: Patient with a prior in situ carcinoma of the bladder in 11/89, left ureter papillary transition cell carcinoma in situ diagnosed in 5/05, left renal pelvis papillary transition cell carcinoma in situ diagnosed in 8/07 and invasive bladder carcinoma diagnosed in 3/08. When an invasive bladder tumor and other urinary site tumors occur, do you stop with the bladder at rule M5 and M6 never reaching M8? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Use the 2007 MP/H rules for urinary sites to assess diagnoses made in 2007-2014. Use the multiple tumors module to compare a diagnosis in 2007-2014 to an earlier diagnosis. For the example above, start by comparing the left renal pelvis diagnosis in 8/07 to the earlier left ureter primary diagnosed 5/05. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M8. The 8/07 renal pelvis diagnosis is not a new primary. Next, compare the 3/08 bladder tumor to the earlier left ureter primary diagnosed 5/05. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M5. The 3/08 bladder tumor is a new primary because it is an invasive diagnosis following an in situ diagnosis. Use only the more recent of the two earlier urinary diagnoses for comparison. Do not compare the 2007 and later diagnoses to the 11/89 in situ bladder primary in this case. |
2009 |
|
|
20100006 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Kidney: In a patient with a history of renal cell carcinoma, would a new primary be accessioned per Rule M10 for a soft tissue mass in the renal fossa not stated to be a metastasis but that was referred to as recurrent renal cell carcinoma, clear cell per the excision pathology report? See Discussion. |
This patient was diagnosed with clear cell carcinoma of the right kidney in 2003, treated with nephrectomy. The tumor was limited to the kidney. An FNA of the pancreas in 11/07 was consistent with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. In 2009 the patient was diagnosed with a right renal fossa mass by CT. The mass was excised on 8/26/09 and showed, "recurrent renal cell ca, clear cell." The path specimen was labeled as, "soft tissue, rt renal fossa." The original 2003 slides were not reviewed and the renal fossa mass was not described as being metastatic. If the renal fossa soft tissue mass is a new tumor, the MP/H rules for Other Sites directs you to code it as a new primary per rule M10 [Tumors diagnosed more than one (1) year apart are multiple primaries]. Would this be a new soft tissue tumor per rule M10? Or would this be a recurrence of the original kidney primary? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: This is not a new primary. The patient has metastatic disease from the 2003 kidney primary. Clear cell carcinoma metastasized to the pancreas in 2007 and to the right renal fossa in 2009. |
2010 |
|
|
20081106 | 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 s/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 interprets 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. |
2008 |
|
|
20081110 | MP/H Rules--Breast: Is a ductal carcinoma diagnosed in August, 2008 following a lobular-ductal primary diagnosed in February 2007 a new primary? See Discussion. |
Patient has two right breast tumors excised in February, 2007. One is lobular and the other ductal - abstracted as single primary per rule M10. Patient presents with new right breast tumor in August, 2008. This is a ductal carcinoma stated to be a recurrence. Would we again stop at M10 (single primary) or continue on to M12 and make this a new primary (difference at third number)? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Stop at rule M10 -- this is the first rule that applies. The 2008 diagnosis is not a new primary. |
2008 |
|
|
20071106 | MP/H Rules--Bladder: Does rule M6 mean that any combination of tumors with the histologies 8050, 8120-8124, or 8130-8131 are the same primary regardless of the amount of time between tumor occurrences? See Discussion. |
Many interpret Rule M7 to mean when separate occurrences of TCC of the bladder are diagnosed more than 3 years apart, it is reportable as a second primary. However, doesn't Rule M6 mean that if the histology is any combination of 8050, 8120-8124 or 8130-8131 for tumors diagnosed more than 3 years apart, they are reported as a single primary? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Papillary, transitional cell and/or papillary transitional cell carcinomas of the bladder are a single primary using Rule M6. Rule M6 includes diagnoses within 3 years of each other AND diagnoses more than three years apart for the histologies listed. If rule M6 applies to your case, stop. Do not continue on to Rule M7. |
2007 |
|
|
20081101 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: If a 1.7 cm LUL lung tumor is not treated surgically, would a 2.1 cm tumor in the same lobe three years later be a new primary? See Discussion. |
In 2004 the patient has a 1.7cm squamous cell carcinoma diagnosed in the LUL of the lung treated with radiation and chemotherapy. In 2007, the patient was diagnosed with a 2.1cm squamous cell carcinoma in the LUL treated with radiation. According to the lung MP/H rules, the 2007 tumor would be a new primary. Given that there was no surgery, would the second tumor be progression of disease or would it be a new primary? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: If the tumor diagnosed in 2004 was successfully treated and disappeared, apply the MP/H rules for lung. According to rule M8, the 2004 tumor and the 2007 tumor are multiple primaries. If there was no disease-free interval between tumor occurrences, that is, if the 2007 tumor is still the same tumor that was diagnosed in 2004, the MP/H rules do not apply. |
2008 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20081015 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: Should a subsequent primary be abstracted using rule M8 for a patient diagnosed in January 2000 with adenocarcinoma of the right upper lung if the patient initially sought alternative therapies and presented in September 2007 for a right upper lobe lung mass with extension into the mediastinum, mediastinal lymph node mets and a pericardial effusion? See Discussion. |
After more than seven years, the patient in this case decided to proceed with the originally suggested standard therapy. Is this a multiple primary case because the tumors are "diagnosed" more than 3 years apart? Or should we assume this is further progression of the 2000 case because it was originally only treated with alternative therapies? The clinician in this case indicates the patient is being referred for treatment to the right upper lung originally diagnosed in 2000. |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Do not abstract a 2007 primary for this case. From the information provided, there is disease progression/extension and lymph node metastasis in 2007; but there are no new lung tumors in 2007. Therefore, the 2007 MP/H rules do not apply. |
2008 |
|
|
20081141 | MP/H Rules--Lung: How do we interpret 'spiculated opacities?' How many primaries do we abstract for this patient? See Discussion. |
Patient admitted for CT scan of chest. Impression: A small subpleural spiculated opacity is noted in the left upper lobe measuring 9.7x7.7mm. Right upper lobe spiculated nodular opacity measures 13.9x5.9mm. Right lower lobe scattered faint alveolar nodular opacities are noted. The lungs are otherwise clear. Abnormal soft tissue density mass is noted of the right hilum surrounding the distal main right pulmonary artery. Bronchoscopy/mediastinoscopy done: rare malignant cells present consistent with small cell carcinoma, specimen submitted as brushing of right bronchus intermedius. The tumor in the lymph node is metastatic small cell carcinoma. Patient discharged to hospice; died 5 weeks later. Do the MP/H rules pertain only to the measured opacities in each lung and not to the RLL scattered faint alveolar nodular opacities? The right side was cytologically confirmed. But if we abstract the left lung, what is the histology...8041 or 8000? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Because there was cytologic confirmation of cancer, for this case only count the spiculated opacities as tumors. Abstract as a single primary using Rule M1. Note 2 under lung rule M1 applies to this case. Code the histology as 8041 [small cell carcinoma] per rule H10. |
2008 |
|
|
20081109 | MP/H Rules--Breast: Patient has 2 existing primaries, both of left breast and both were pure lobular carcinoma, one was diagnosed in 1994 and the other in 2005. Now a biopsy in 2008 of a supraclavicular lymph node (laterality unknown) and subcutaneous scalp tissue show metastatic DUCTAL carcinoma. Per path report, breast is the primary site. Slides from prior tumors were not reviewed. Should this be made a new primary or assumed to be metastasis from the prior breast tumors? See Discussion. |
A modified radical mastectomy was performed on 10/6/94. The 2007 MP/H rules tell us that multiple ductal and lobular tumors of breast are a single primary; however, the rules do not apply to metastatic tumors. |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Abstract the 2008 diagnosis as a new primary. Since the primary site is unproven but stated to be breast, and since the laterality is unknown, we cannot determine that the 2008 diagnosis is the same as the 2005 or the 1994 diagnosis. Revise this case accordingly if more information becomes available. |
2008 |
An official website of the United States government
