System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 03/01/2026 23:43 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20130212 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a case reportable in which the pathology report is negative for plasmacytoma but a subsequent physician's clinical diagnosis is plasmacytoma?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

This case is reportable if the patient was treated for plasmacytoma. When the physician calls the case plasmacytoma and treats the patient accordingly, report the case.

See Case Reportability Instructions #6: Report the case when there is a clinical diagnosis (physician's statement) of a reportable hematopoietic or lymphoid neoplasm.

Note 1: The clinical diagnosis may be a final diagnosis found within the medical record or recorded on a scan (CT, MRI for example)

Note 2: Report the case even if the diagnostic tests are equivocal. A number of hematopoietic neoplasms are "diagnoses of exclusion" in which the diagnostic tests are equivocal and the physician makes the clinical diagnosis based on the equivocal tests and the clinical picture. See the Heme DB for definitive diagnostic methods for the specific neoplasm being abstracted.

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.

2013
20130055 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site coded for a lymphoma with multifocal bone and epidural involvement but no lymph node involvement if the physician does not clearly state the primary site? See Discussion.

MRI Lumbar spine: Bony metastatic disease most evident at L5, L3 and T10. There is marrow tumor in the posterior elements of T12 and T10. The 14 mm epidural mass represents epidural tumor, likely metastatic, extending into the left intervertebral foramen at T12-L1.

PET scan: Hypermetabolic activity corresponding to epidural mass at the level of T12 and L1 concerning for malignancy. Other small areas of hypermetabolic activity in the left mandible and both femoral necks. There is no hypermetabolic activity corresponding to the areas of abnormal marrow edema in the vertebral bodies which enhanced on MRI scan in the lumbar and lower thoracic spine. No lymph nodes mentioned.

Biopsy epidural mass: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma with a background of follicular lymphoma, consistent with a large cell transformation. Flow cytometry confirms a mixed large and small cell population of lymphoma (55% large cells).

T12/L1 Bone Biopsy: Bone and marrow with atypical paratrabecular lymphoid infiltrates, suspicious for involvement by follicular lymphoma. Negative for large cell lymphoma.

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Code the primary site of the diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3] to C809 [unknown primary site] per Rule PH27. The patient has involvement of multiple bones and an epidural mass with no evidence of nodal involvement. Code the primary site to unknown [C809] when multiple organs are involved without any lymph node involvement, even when there is no statement from the physician regarding primary site.

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.

 2013
20130065 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the higher histology code associated with grade 1 follicular lymphoma [9695/3] be used rather than grade 2 follicular lymphoma [9691/3] in cases of follicular lymphoma grade 1-2? Code histology to 9691/3 [follicular lymphoma, grade 2], histology. For follicular lymphoma, when there is a grade such as 1-2 indicated, take the histology associated with the higher grade disease process, even though the lower grade histology code is higher. 2013
20130105

Primary Site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site coded for a B-cell lymphoma intermediate between diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma when a biopsy of the paraspinal muscle and epidural tissue is positive, but there is no indication of lymph node involvement in the chart?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Code the primary site to soft tissue of the back, NOS [C496] per Rule PH24 and the Abstractor Notes in the Heme DB for B-cell lymphoma intermediate between diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma.

Code the primary site to the organ when lymphoma is present only in an organ. The lesion is described as epidural (tissue surrounding the dura) and involving paraspinal muscle, NOS. Both are connective or other soft tissues of the trunk, NOS [C496].

B-cell lymphoma intermediate between diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma is a synonym for DLBCL 9680/3. When there is no primary site listed in the Heme DB, go to the Abstractor Notes. In the Abstractor Notes section it states that patients present with lymphadenopathy OR mass lesions in extranodal sites.

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.

 2013
20130124 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is Rosai-Dorfman's syndrome (histiocytosis) a reportable malignant condition? Rosai-Dorfman disease is not reportable. Rosai-Dorfman disease is a rare non-neoplastic disease. This disease can mimic lymphoma and extranodal involvement is frequent. 2013
20130106 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a 2009 diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma, nodular sclerosis type is treated and subsequently presents in 2010 with the same diagnosis? See Discussion.

2009 diagnosis of Hodgkin lymphoma, nodular sclerosis type involved the superior mediastinal nodes, AP window nodes, bilateral axillary nodes and pulmonary nodules. The patient received chemotherapy and went into remission.

Patient presents in 2010 with Hodgkin lymphoma, nodular sclerosing type in the superior mediastinum.

Does timing play any part in determining if this reported as one or two primaries? There is no timing rule in the Heme Manual.

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Accession a single primary, Hodgkin lymphoma, nodular sclerosis type [9663/3] diagnosed in 2009 per Rule M2.

Accession a single primary when there is a single histology. Note 2 for Rule M2 indicates timing is not relevant. This is disease progression or recurrence and not a new primary.

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.

2013
20130072

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries are accessioned when the right lower lobe lung has two adenocarcinomas, both with lepidic pattern, if the tumor board staged these tumors as separate primaries? See Discussion.

Per pathology report

  • Lung, right lower lobe, wedge excision (A): Invasive moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma with focal lepidic pattern (pT1a, pN0).
  • Right lower lobe, completion lobectomy (F): Separate focus of well differentiated adenocarcinoma with lepidic pattern (<4mm) (see comment).
  • COMMENT: The block F7 shows a microscopic focus of adenocarcinoma with lepidic growth pattern. This most likely represents a separate primary tumor since the stapled margins were all negative for involvement. This focus measures less than 0.4 cm.
  • Tumor focality: Most likely two separate primary tumor nodules. Histologic type: adenocarcinoma, mixed type (NOS and lepidic type).

The tumor board has staged this as two separate primaries and is treating it as such. They are not considering the second focus metastatic even though it is the same histology. Lepidic is not in the ICD-O-3. Is lepidic a new term for histology?

For cases diagnosed 2007 and later, accession a single primary, adenocarcinoma [8140/3] of the right lower lobe lung. 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 formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). Go to the Lung MP rules because site specific rules have been developed for this primary.

Step 2: Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. Stop at rule M12. Accession a single primary when the patient has two tumors in the same lung with the same histology.

Keep in mind that physicians follow different "rules" to determine the number of primaries. Even though the physicians consider this case to represent two primaries, the MP/H rules instruct you to accession one primary.

We have received quite a few questions about the term lepidic. Below is the general definition of lepidic that will be added to the next MP/H revision.

"Lepidic" is a growth pattern meaning that tumor cells are growing along the alveolar septa. It is characteristic of bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC), but not diagnostic of it. The diagnosis of BAC also requires no stromal, vascular, or pleural invasion. Lepidic growth may be seen in other adenocarcinomas, including metastases to lung from other sites. It is not a type/subtype of adenocarcinoma. For lepidic lung neoplasms, code the histology indicated, for example BAC.

 2013
20130094 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries are accessioned and which M rule applies for a 2010 diagnosis of clear cell adenocarcinoma of the left upper lobe lung followed by a 2012 diagnosis of adenosquamous carcinoma of lung origin without evidence of a primary lung tumor? See Discussion.

Patient was diagnosed with T1 N0 M0 adenocarcinoma with prominent clear cell features [8310/3] in the LUL on 08/05/2010. The patient underwent a lobectomy only.

On 10/09/2012 the patient underwent an iliac bone biopsy showing non-small cell carcinoma with glandular and squamous features [8560/3]. Clinically, the physician is calling this stage IV adenosquamous carcinoma of lung origin involving lymph nodes, spleen and bones. There were no FDG avid pulmonary nodules found. There was no pathologic comparison to the prior lung tumor.

Should the 2012 diagnosis be a new primary because the histology is different from the 2010 diagnosis? Or should this be one primary because there appears to be only metastatic disease with no new primary lung tumor identified in 2012? The choice of one primary seems supported by the fact that the 2012 tumor showed glandular and squamous features, and the 2010 tumor also showed glandular and clear cell (NOS) features. The clear cell could have been a clear cell squamous cell carcinoma. The original tumor was not re-examined.

Accession a single primary, clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] of the left upper lobe lung [C341] diagnosed on 08/05/2010.

The MP/H Rules do not apply to the 2012 diagnosis because only metastatic sites were examined and there was no re-examination of the original 2010 tumor. Therefore, the disease process in 2012 is assumed to be metastatic from the lung primary diagnosed in 2010.

2013
20130215

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis synonymous with an EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disorder in children reportable? See Discussion.

Pathology report states: Prominent T-cell infiltrate with frequent immunoblast-like cells. COMMENT: Findings consistent with an acute EBV-associated hemophagocytic process. In addition, there is a prominent CD8 + T-cell infiltrate with many large, activated forms. This T-cell process may represent an EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disorder in children.

EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disorder in children is listed in the Heme database. However, throughout multiple admissions, the oncologist states the diagnosis as "hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis". Are the two the same condition?

The patient is being treated with Etoposide.

Per Appendix F, do not report this case based on the information provided.

The oncologist likely used the pathology report and clinical factors to determine the diagnosis of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, which is not reportable. Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis is caused by an over stimulated immune system (infection, etc.). This clinical syndrome is associated with a variety of underlying conditions. To be reportable, it must state "fulminant hemophagocytic syndrome" (in a child) to be reportable (9724/3).

The pathology report for this case is not definitive. It states that the process "may" represent the EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disorder in children.

Follow back on this case to confirm reportability if possible.

 2013
20130189

Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are the terms 'mass' and 'lesion' reportable terms for accessioning brain and CNS primaries? See Discussion.

With respect to reportability, the SEER Manual mentions 'tumor' and 'neoplasm,' but not 'mass' or 'lesion.' The SEER MP/H Manual states tumor, mass, lesion and neoplasm are equivalent terms for determining multiple primaries, but does this apply to reportability? If not, what is the distinction?

'Mass' and 'lesion' are not reportable terms for benign/borderline brain and CNS tumors.

Reportable terms for benign/borderline brain and CNS primaries are 'tumor' and 'neoplasm.' These terms appear in the ICD-O-3. 'Lesion' and 'mass' do not appear in the ICD-O-3. Do not use the MP/H Manual to determine reportability; page 2 of the SEER Manual is the correct source for reportability instructions.

 2013