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: 11/18/2025 02:57 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20100002 Reportability/Histology--Colon: Is a colon tumor reportable if the pathology report final diagnosis is high grade dysplasia but CAP protocol histologic type designation is adenocarcinoma in situ? See Discussion. The microscopic description and the final diagnosis on the pathology report indicate the tumor is a large tubulovillous adenoma of the cecum with focal surface high grade dysplasia. The CAP protocol histologic type designation is adenocarcinoma in situ and pT designation is pTis. Which has priority? Is the case reportable?

The case is reportable because carcinoma in situ is stated. Carcinoma in situ has higher priority than severe dysplasia or high grade dysplasia.

Per AJCC 6th edition colon chapter, the terms "high grade dysplasia" or "severe dysplasia" may be synonymous with carcinoma in situ. Because the pathologist gave carcinoma in situ information within the CAP, (s)he is apparently defining the dysplasia as in situ carcinoma.

 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
20100108 MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: How is histology coded for a left occipital parietal area tumor stated to be a "low grade neuroectodermal neoplasm most consistent with neuronal tumor but lacking classic features of ganglioma" if the pathologist states the tumor is not malignant? Code 9505/0 [Ganglioglioma, benign] is the best option according to our pathology expert. He states, "There recently has been a spate of tumors called low grade glio-neuronal tumors that are not PNETs and have no propensity to become malignant." 2010
20100014 Reportability: Are there criteria other than a pathologist or clinician's statement that a registrar can use to determine reportability of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST)? See Discussion.

Per SINQ 20091021 and 20021151, GIST cases are not reportable unless they are stated to be malignant. A pathologist or clinician must confirm the diagnosis of cancer. There are cases that are not stated to be malignant in the pathology report or confirmed as such by a clinician; however, these cases do have information that for other primary sites would typically be taken into consideration when determining reportability. The final diagnosis on the pathology report for all 16 cases is "GIST." The additional comment(s) for each of the 16 different cases is reported below. Are any of the following cases reportable?

1) Pathology report indicates that the bulk of the tumor is submucosal. It extends through the muscularis propria and abuts the serosa.

2) Pathology report states tumor extends to serosal surface of transverse colon, but not into muscularis propria. CD 117 and CD 34 are positive.

3) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades through the gastric wall to the serosal surface.

4) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades pericolic fat tissue.

5) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate omental caking.

6) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate hepatic metastases. Hepatic metastases are not biopsied.

7) Tumor stated to be unresectable and extends into pancreas. Chemotherapy given.

8) Pathology report states tumor is low to intermediate grade and involves serosal (visceral peritoneum).

9) Tumor size is 17.5 cm. Pathology report states "malignant risk".

10) Pathology report states tumor "into muscularis propria" or tumor "involves muscularis propria" or "infiltrates into muscularis propria".

11) Pathology report states, "high malignant potential; omentum inv by tumor." It is not stated in path report or final diagnosis to be malignant GIST.

12) Pathology report states that tumor arises from wall of small bowel and extends into thin serosal surface.

13) Pathology report states minimal invasion of lamina propria; does not penetrate muscularis propria.

14) Pathology report states, "high mitotic activity >10/50 HPF; high risk for aggressive behavior; moderate malignant potential."

15) Pathology report states tumor size is >5 cm. Intermediate risk for aggressive behavior; CD117+ KIT exon 11+.

16) Pathology report states "high risk of malignancy."

 For GIST to be reportable, the final diagnosis on the pathology report must definitively state that the GIST is malignant, or invasive, or in situ. Case 6 is the only exception. It would be reportable assuming the scan actually states "hepatic metastases." Based only on the information provided, none of the other examples are reportable. The type of extension and/or invasion mentioned in the other examples are not sufficient to confirm malignancy. Borderline neoplasms can extend and invade, but do not metastasize. Only malignant neoplasms metastasize. 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
20100098 Primary site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are these fields coded for a 2008 diagnosis of small B cell leukemia, most consistent with mantle cell leukemia that only involved the bone marrow? See Discussion. A bone marrow biopsy was done on 6/18/2008 and showed only small B cell leukemia, most consistent with mantle cell leukemia. ICD-O-3 does not list a histology code for small B cell leukemia or mantle cell leukemia.

Code the histology to 9673/3 [mantle cell lymphoma] and the primary site to C421 [bone marrow].

Mantle cell lymphoma can present in a leukemic phase. The only code available is for mantle cell lymphoma and the only primary site that could be coded would be bone marrow.

2010
20100078 MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How is histology coded for a diagnosis of squamous carcinoma and large cell undifferentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, apply rule H7 and code the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code, 8070/3 [Squamous cell carcinoma]. See Chart 1, the histology tree in lung equivalent terms. Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma is histology code 8013/3. The other histology is squamous carcinoma, 8070/3. 8070/3 is higher numerically than 8013/3. 2010
20100092 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the primary site for the follicular lymphoma diagnosis be coded to C779 [Lymph nodes, NOS] when a bone marrow biopsy reveals both acute myeloid leukemia and follicular lymphoma? See Discussion. Bone marrow biopsy reveals acute myeloid leukemia and follicular lymphoma. There were no other studies done, no chemo given, and the patient expired shortly after diagnosis. Should the follicular lymphoma be coded to a primary site C779 [Lymph nodes, NOS]?

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

Code the primary site to C421 [bone marrow]. Per Rule PH26, bone marrow is the primary site when lymphoma is present only in the bone marrow. All the available physical exams, scans, and other work-up must also be negative for lymph node, tissue, or organ involvement. When there is no additional workup beyond the bone marrow biopsy and that biopsy is positive, code the primary site to bone marrow in those situations as well.

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
20100075 Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be accessioned when a 1/27/10 bone marrow biopsy, FISH and cytogenetics reveals chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), BCR/ABL positive, t(9;22)(q34;q11) and a 4/15/10 bone marrow biopsy reveals B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Blast phase of CML)?

1/27/10 BM biopsy: CML BCR/ABL+ FISH positive for BCR/ABL and cytogenetics showing the t(9;22)q34q11.2 translocation. Treated with Imatinib. 4/15/10 BM biopsy: B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Blast phase of CML). Would the term "blast phase of CML" indicate the 4/15/10 bone marrow biopsy showed CML or would a new primary be abstracted with histology coded 9811/3 [B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma, NOS]?

Applying rule M10, this is a new primary, but note 2 states transformations are defined in the Heme DB. The Abstractor Notes section indicates CML has three phases: chronic, accelerated, and the blastic phase or blast crisis. The accelerated phase can last weeks to months. In the chronic phase the involvement is usually limited to blood, bone marrow and spleen although the liver may be infiltrated. During the blastic phase, lymph nodes and tissue may be involved. The blastic phase is a disease progression from the chronic phase. The disease, however, remains the same histology, chronic myelogenous leukemia.

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

This case represents a multiple primary per Rule M15 which states you are to use the Heme DB Multiple Primaries Calculator to determine the number of primaries for all cases that do not meet the criteria of M1-M14.

The histology for the first primary is coded to 9875/3 [chronic myelogenous leukemia, BCR-ABL1 positive].

The histology for the second primary is 9811/3 [B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma, NOS] in the absence of further documentation that the B-ALL was also positive for the t(9;22) translocation.

The histology code 9806/3 [Mixed phenotype acute leukemia with t(9;22)(q34;q11.2); BCR-ABL1] cannot be used for the second primary because there is no documentation that the B-ALL diagnosed on 04/15/2010 also had the t(9;22) translocation and this histology cannot be used in patients ." Per the Definition section in the Heme DB, in order to use histology code 9806/3 "This leukemia meets the criteria for mixed phenotype acute leukemia (MPAL) in which the blasts also have t(9;22) translocation of BCR-ABL1 rearrangement. Some patients with chronic myeloid leukemia may develop or even present with a mixed blast phase that would meet criteria for MPAL; however, this diagnosis should not be made in patients known to have had CML."

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
20100095

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Kidney, renal pelvis: In a patient who was never disease free because of multiple recurrences of invasive transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder originally diagnosed in 2004, is an invasive high grade urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis diagnosed in 2010 a new primary? See Discussion.

Patient has invasive TCC of the bladder diagnosed in 2004, and has never been disease free.

In 2/18/10 a left renal pelvis wash showed urothelial carcinoma, high grade.

On 4/7/10 a nephroureterectomy revealed high grade urothelial carcinoma with sarcomatous and squamous differentiation invading through pelvic wall and perihilar soft tissue.

Is this a new renal pelvis primary?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the renal pelvis is a new primary per rule M7. M7 will be better explained in the revised MP/H rules, but the rationale is that no field effect was present for more than 3 years. Although the bladder CA continued to recur, there were no other organs involved until 2010. M7 is intended to make the renal pelvis a new primary because there was no field effect (no organs other than bladder involved) for more than 3 years.

 2010