Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20100057 | First course treatment--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is the use of the corticosteroid, Clobetasol, cancer-directed treatment for mycosis fungoides or is it only used to treat the side effects of that disease? | Clobetasol is not cancer-directed treatment at this time.
Note: Question originally submitted in 2010. During 2014 review, this was checked and Clobetasol is still not cancer directed treatment for Mycosis Fungoides. |
2010 | |
|
|
20100028 | Primary site/Histology--Head & Neck: How are these fields coded when the final diagnosis for a skull based mass is "neuroendocrine carcinoma" and the IHC studies are incompatible with a brain/spinal cord primary (ependymoma)? See Discussion. |
The pathology report final diagnosis is, "skull base mass, biopsy: neuroendocrine carcinoma, see note. NOTE: Ancillary IHC studies reveal ...the IHC signature is incompatible with ependymoma. The constellation of findings is diagnostic of well differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma." The site/histology combination of C410 and 8246/3 is 'impossible' by SEER edits. There is no override. What is the correct primary site and histology? |
According to our subject matter expert physician, this unusual case is most likely a sino-nasal tumor (some variant of esthesioneuroblastoma [olfactory neuroblastoma]). Code to nasal cavity [C300] as indicated in ICD-O-3 by site-associated topography code attached to the morphology code for olfactory neuroblastoma [9522/3]. |
2010 |
|
|
20100067 | MP/H Rules/Reportability--Ovary: Should an ovarian tumor with the histology of mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma be accessioned based on the presence of a foci of intraepithelial carcinoma? See Discussion. | The final diagnosis on the pathology report, "Omentum: mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma. Peritoneal fluid for cytology: neoplastic cells present; low grade serous neoplasm. Lymph nodes, right pelvic: one lymph node harboring implants of serous borderline tumor and endosalpingiosis within the subcapsular sinus. Bilateral fallopian tubes and ovaries: mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma involving ovarian surface and serosal surface of the tube. Detached fragment of borderline tumor within the tubal lumen. Uterus, cervix, and segment of colon: mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma involving parametrial and paracervical tissue, cul de sac, uterine and colonic serosa. Nine pericolonic lymph nodes negative for tumor. Stage III.
I&R # 45622 asked if a mucinous borderline tumor with intraepithelial carcinoma and focal microinvasion is reportable. The answer given on that site was that the case is not reportable. According to MPH, FORDS, and Collaborative Stage, intraepithelial carcinoma is in situ, behavior code 2, and is reportable. Has this changed? |
This case is reportable because there is a diagnosis of carcinoma (intraepithelial carcinoma). | 2010 |
|
|
20100008 | Primary site--Bladder/Unknown & ill-defined sites: Should the coding of primary site be based on a molecular study when it is not verified by a clinical correlation? See Discussion. | Patient was seen in 2009 at Hospital A for bone pain and was found to have metastatic adenocarcinoma. A paraffin block specimen was sent to BioThernostics for THEROS CancerTYPE ID Molecular Cancer Classification Tests. The results came back with a 94% likelihood that the urinary bladder was the primary site. No scans were done on the abdomen or pelvis.
The patient was then sent to Hospital B for radiation to the bones and chemotherapy (Carboplatin and Taxol). The patient died within 6 months.
According to Hospital A, the primary site is bladder based on the molecular study report. Hospital B says this is an unknown primary. Which is correct? Do we take primary site from these tests, even when no clinical correlation is documented? |
Code primary site to bladder in this case. Code the known primary site when given the choice between a known primary site and an unknown primary site. | 2010 |
|
|
20100088 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient has 2005 diagnosis of multiple myeloma diagnosed returns in 2010 with extramedullary plasmacytoma and a bone marrow biopsy showing plasma cell dyscrasia that is clinically stated to "consistent with a relapse of myeloma"? See Discussion. | Patient was diagnosed in 2005 with multiple myeloma and following stem cell transplant 2005 was in complete remission.
On 2/1/10 an excisional biopsy of a soft tissue right flank mass showed plasmacytoma. On 3/2/10 the bone marrow biopsy was stated to be consistent with plasma cell dyscrasia. An outside attending physician stated the bone marrow biopsy was consistent with a relapse of myeloma. There was no radiologic evidence of disease elsewhere as of Feb 2010, only the soft tissue right flank mass. Patient initially presented for post-op radiation to the right flank and was treated 3/29/10. On 8/6/10 a biopsy of a right perinephric mass was positive for plasmacytoma. Subsequent xray on 8/16/10 of the right tibia and fibula showed lytic lesion consistent with progression of myeloma.
Using the Hematopoietic Database, the plasmacytoma in 2/1/10 is a second primary. How do the rules apply to the perinephric soft tissue disease and right tibia lesion? Are they separate new primaries? Or is all of this simply a recurrence of the original 2005 diagnosis as the attending physician states? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Accession a single primary with the histology coded to 9732/2 [multiple myeloma]. The disease discovered in 2010 represents further advancement of former disease. Per the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB, it states that bone marrow involvement, lytic bone lesions, and bone tumor masses of plasma cells are common. Under the Recurrence and Metastases section in the Heme DB it further states that extramedullary (in tissue other than the bone) involvement is a generally a manifestation of advanced disease. This case is an example of such a situation.
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. |
2010 |
|
|
20100090 | MP/H Rules/Histology: How is histology coded for a diagnosis of "poorly differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma intermixed with osteoid sarcomatous component, consistent with malignant mixed mullerian tumor with heterologous (osteosarcoma) elements"? Is malignant mixed mullerian tumor synonymous with carcinosarcoma? See Discussion. | Given that there is no mixed code for these histologies, can the numerically higher code be used per H17 (malignant mixed mullerian tumor [8950/3]) using the logic of the MP/H rule for other sites? If so, should this histology be coded as 8980/3 [carcinosarcoma] rather than 8950/3 [malignant mixed mullerian tumor]? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code histology to 8980/3 [carcinosarcoma]. Recent literature states that carcinosarcoma is synonymous with mixed mullerian tumor. Mixed mullerian tumor is an obsolete term and should not be used. | 2010 |
|
|
20100089 | Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is primary site coded when lymphoma is initially found in both lymph nodes and bone marrow, the pathology report is unavailable, and the physician only states that both areas are involved? See Discussion. | For many consultations and/or class 2 cases, the pathology report is not available to help determine the primary site. Should the primary site be automatically coded to C421 over C77_ when both are involved? The Abstractor Notes state the primary site can be either bone marrow or lymph nodes. The physician states only that both are involved. | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Because both the bone marrow and LN are involved, code the primary site to C779 [lymph nodes, NOS] per Rule PH22. You are to code specific nodes if a specific region is specified; however, if no region is specified, code to lymph node, NOS [C779]). When you are having problems coding primary site, go to Module 7 Primary Site Rules for Lymphomas Only. See Rule PH26. It states that you code the primary site to bone marrow when ONLY the bone marrow is involved.
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. |
2010 |
|
|
20100068 | Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is this field coded for a JAK-2 positive myeloproliferative disorder, NOS, that is never specified as acute or chronic but was treated with Hydrea? See Discussion. | The hematology oncologist referred to the case as a JAK-2 positive myeloproliferative disorder. It is never called acute or chronic. JAK-2 test was positive for mutation, and the bone marrow report indicates, "Morphological features can be seen in myeloproliferative neoplasm." Flow cytometry report indicates, "The flow data demonstrate neutrophilia with left shift. Lymphocytes are composed of a mixed population of T and B-cells with some atypical B-cells." The patient is subsequently treated with Hydrea. | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to 9975/3 [myeloproliferative/myelodysplastic neoplasm, unclassifiable] which is a new code implemented in 2010. Myeloproliferative disorder NOS is equivalent to myeloproliferative disease which is listed as a synonym for code 9975/3.
When the disease is diagnosed very early, it may manifest symptoms of two or more specific myeloproliferative neoplasms. As the disease progresses, it will manifest the symptoms of one of the specific MPN subtypes. When a more specific diagnosis becomes available, change the histology code to the more specific MPN code as directed in the PH rules. That is the scenario you describe. JAK-2 is positive, but the physician does not designate PV or ET. Hydrea is treatment for both PV and ET. In the future, the specific type of MPN may be diagnosed. In the interim, code the only diagnosis you have, MPN, NOS.
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. |
2010 |
|
|
20100072 | Histology/Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a diagnosis of follicular lymphoma in situ of the gallbladder reportable for 2010? See Discussion. | Coding the histology to 9690 [Follicular lymphoma] with a behavior of 2 [in situ] causes many edits including SEER and CS edits to fail. According to the chief of pathology, this is a recently identified pathologic entity. | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Currently, lymphoma in situ is not reportable. It is true that this is a recently identified pathologic entity. Our experts say that there is still some controversy to be ironed out regarding the criteria for identifying an in situ lymphoma. Their recommendation was to wait until clear guidelines had been established for the pathologists before we start collection of in situ lymphomas. We anticipate collecting these entities in the future.
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. |
2010 |
|
|
20100061 | MP/H Rules/Histology: The 2010 SEER Manual has omitted some useful information in the Histologic Type ICD-O-3 section, specifically the statement of "Do not revise or update the histology code based on subsequent recurrence(s)". Will this statement be added to the revisions of the MPH rules? See Discussion. | Example: A 2005 diagnosis of left breast lobular carcinoma [8520/3], followed by a 2009 diagnosis of left breast ductal carcinoma [8500/3]. Rule M10 states this is a single primary, but there is no information in the Histology rules (Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary) that the original histology should be retained, thus a person could potentially use these rules to change the original histology to 8522/3 [duct and lobular carcinoma] per rule H28. | We will reinstate the instruction not to change the histology code based on recurrence in future versions of the histology coding instructions. However, this instruction may not be applicable to all anatomic sites. It will be reinstated on a site-by-site basis. You may also refer to the instructions on Page 7 of the 2010 SEER Manual under the heading "Changing Information on the Abstract." | 2010 |
An official website of the United States government
