Histology (Pre-2007)--Skin: Are "atypical melanocytic hyperplasia" and "severe melanotic dysplasia" synonyms for melanoma in situ?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
No. SEER determines its reportable list from the ICD-O-3. The above terms are listed as tumor-like lesions and conditions, but are not in situ or malignant.
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.
Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient was treated in 1999 with Vidaza for myelodysplastic syndrome and had a recent biopsy that demonstrated a transformation to acute myeloid leukemia?
This case should be accessioned as a single primary, acute myeloid leukemia [9861/3].
MDS diagnosed prior to 1/1/2001 is not a reportable disease process. However, because MDS is currently a reportable disease process, it must be considered when trying to determine whether the AML represents a separate primary.
If the Heme DB indicates MDS and AML represent different (separate) disease processes, only one primary is reported (i.e., AML) because the 1999 diagnosed MDS is not reportable.
If the Heme DB indicates MDS and AML represent the same disease process, then no primaries are reported because MDS was not reportable in 1999.
Rule M2 does not apply to this case because more than one histology is mentioned in the scenario. According to the Heme DB, MDS can transform to AML. Rules M8-M13 apply to cases involving transformation. In this case, Rule M10 applies because the patient was diagnosed with a chronic neoplasm (myelodysplastic syndrome) followed greater than 21 days later by an acute neoplasm (AML).
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is EBV-positive hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) reportable when diagnosed in a 5 year old child and resulted in death in less than two months?
Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) is not a reportable disease because it is not listed in the Heme DB.
Per our expert pathologist consultant, "HLH is a lymphocyte driven hemophagocytic syndrome which may be either genetically based or caused by over-activated lymphoid cells, often in response to a viral infection. It is an abnormal immune response and is not considered a malignant disease, and is, therefore, not reportable. It is not synonymous with EBV-positive T-cell lymphoproliferative disease of childhood (9724/3)."
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
Reportability--Pancreas: Is a solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas reportable?
Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas is reportable. According to the WHO classification, it is a "low-grade malignant neoplasm…[which] frequently undergoes hemorrhagic-cystic degeneration and occurs predominantly in young women."
Assign topography code C25 with the appropriate 4th digit. Code the histology as 8452/3.
Behavior--Breast: Should the behavior change to /3, invasive, to get a case to clear edits? The histology of this breast case is ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 8500/2. Lymph nodes are positive for micro-mets (0.2 mm-2 mm). SEER Summary Stage: 3, regional lymph nodes positive. This creates an edit for SEER Summary Stage due to the behavior code of /2, in situ.
Code the behavior to /3, not just to pass edits, but because this is an invasive case based on the positive lymph nodes.
For most cases, behavior is based on the primary tumor, but in situations like this where an invasive component cannot be found and there are positive lymph nodes, the /3 behavior is assigned based on the positive lymph nodes.
Date of Diagnosis/Ambiguous Terminology--Lung: Would the date of a PET scan that states there is a mass in the lung which is "in the range of malignancy " be coded as the date of diagnosis or would the date of a subsequent bronchoscopy with biopsy be used for diagnosis date because it confirms a malignancy?
The date of diagnosis in this case is the date of the bronchoscopy with biopsy.
"In the range of malignancy" is not one of the ambiguous terms that are reportable. Please see the list of reportable ambiguous terms on page 3 of the 2004 SEER manual. Do not accession cases based on ambiguous terms not found on the reportable list.
MP/H Rules/Histology-Urinary: 1) What is the correct ICD-O-3 morphology code for conventional renal cell carcinoma? Is this clear cell carcinoma or does conventional refer to the general diagnosis?
2) If a patient was diagnosed with invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma of the bladder in May 2011 and returns in February 2013 with invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, what is the correct ICD-O-3 morphology code?
1) Clear cell renal carcinoma, code 8310, is often called conventional renal cell carcinoma. It is specific compared to renal cell carcinoma, NOS, code 8312, a general morphology term for the majority of kidney cancers. See kidney rules H5 and H12 and Table 1 on page 57 of the Kidney Terms and Definitions, http://www.seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/mphrules_definitions.pdf
2) Do not change the ICD-O-3 code assigned for the 2011 diagnosis. As you know, the 2013 diagnosis is not a new primary per rule M6.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: Regarding rule H15, is the mixed code 8340 [Papillary carcinoma, follicular variant] used when there are subtypes of these histologies described, such as a tumor diagnosed with follicular and papillary microcarcinoma or should 8341 [Papillary microcarcinoma] be used?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
For coding purposes, this is a papillary and follicular combination that would be coded to the combination code 8340/3 [Papillary carcinoma, follicular variant].
For thyroid cancer only, the term micropapillary does not refer to a specific histologic type. It means that the papillary portion of the tumor is minimal or occult, usually less than 1 cm. in diameter.
An official website of the United States government
Home