Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20100076 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: If not specified as primary, idiopathic, or essential, is thrombocytosis, NOS reportable? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Unless the disease is specified as primary, idiopathic, essential, or the physician states there is a myeloproliferative neoplasm, the term thrombocytosis, NOS is not reportable. Thrombocytosis, NOS, is the presence of high platelet counts in the blood. Thrombocytosis can be associated with chronic infections and other diseases as well as with myeloproliferative disease. Thrombocytosis, NOS is listed in Appendix F as a Non-Reportable Term.
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 | |
|
|
20100024 | Histology: How is this field coded for a perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm (PEComa) of uncertain malignant potential that is malignant based on the presence of metastases? See Discussion. |
In 11/2006 the patient had surgery for a 6cm mass in the RUQ arising in the falciform ligament. The pathologic final diagnosis was: Perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm (PEComa) of uncertain malignant potential. In 10/2009 a liver biopsy showed metastatic perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm. |
Assign histology code 8005/3 [malignant clear cell tumor]. According to our expert pathology consultant, this is the best histology code available at this time for the occasional tumor which is designated as malignant. The appearance of metastatic disease clearly defines this case as malignant. |
2010 |
|
|
20100083 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned for a patient with a longstanding history of follicular cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma followed by a 2010 diagnosis of "B-cell lymphoma with prominent large cell component, compatible with primary cutaneous follicle center cell lymphoma"? See Discussion. | Patient has a history of follicular cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma dating back to the 1990s. The patient was treated with chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation, radiation and rituximab. The patient had no evidence of recurrence. In April 2010 a lesion appeared on the side of the scalp above the left ear with a diagnosis of "B-cell lymphoma with prominent large cell component, compatible with primary cutaneous follicle center cell lymphoma." The oncology diagnosis is "primary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma."
Would the Multiple Primaries Calculator be used in this case? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Accession two primaries per Rule M15. Per the Multiple Primaries Calculator, primary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma [9597/3] following a diagnosis of follicular lymphoma, NOS [9690/3] is a new primary.
While the pathologic diagnosis was B-cell lymphoma "compatible with" primary cutaneous follicle center cell lymphoma and ambiguous terms cannot be used to identify a more specific histology, the physician confirmed the more specific diagnosis without ambiguous terminology. Therefore, this diagnosis should be coded.
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 |
|
|
20100046 | Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a clinical remission sufficient to change the tumor status to "disease free" for a patient on long-term chemotherapy for a diagnosis of either a chronic hematologic disease, such as CML, or a myeloproliferative disorder, such as essential thrombocythemia? See Discussion. |
For some patients with chronic hematologic diseases, the disease/recurrence status could change frequently as chemotherapy is started and stopped over an extended period of time. Should the tumor status for these cases always be "not disease free"? When the physician documents the patient is in clinical remission, does their status change to "NED or disease free?" There seems to be a lot of variation across the US in how registrars are coding this field. Clarification would be appreciated. |
The term "disease free" is not used in a standard fashion for hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms.
Code the cancer status to free of disease when the physician indicates NED. For hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms, a physician's statement of NED, disease-free, clinical remission or no evidence of disease at this time, should be recorded with cancer status to disease free. The term "disease free" or NED means that there is no clinical evidence of disease. |
2010 |
|
|
20100081 | Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should a single primary be accessioned with the histology coded 9732/3 [multiple myeloma] when a patient is diagnosed initially with a plasmacytoma on an excision and a single bone marrow biopsy showed only 4% plasma cells, then the subsequent workup led to a clinical diagnosis of multiple myeloma? See Discussion. | This patient had a plasmacytoma removed from the sphenoid sinus and was started on Dexamethasone. The patient had a bone marrow biopsy with 4% plasma cells. A statement in the hematology notes read, "it can increase the rate of false negative results with a bone marrow biopsy." The bone marrow biopsy was done 15 days after the surgery for the plasmacytoma.
Workup yielded the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Per a statement in hematology notes, "I found her having 4% blasts, atypical plasma cells in the bone marrow biopsy and also lytic lesions involving the T7 and lucencies involving L4 and L5 vertebral bodies and also the upper sacrum. The PET-CT scan did not show significant metabolic activities in those lesions. The patient had a small amount of Bence-Jones in the urine and also an abnormal kappa to lambda ratio in the serum. The ratio was 12 to 1. The beta 2 microglobulin was 1.4. The albumin in the serum was 3.4. Based on that, the patient has been diagnosed with Durie-Salmon stage III in ISS stage II multiple myeloma."
The abstractor notes for multiple myeloma state that the diagnosis is made when the proportion of plasma cells in the bone marrow is 10% or greater. Should a diagnosis of MM be accessioned and coded when the bone marrow is less than 10% plasma cells, but a clinical diagnosis of MM is made? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Accept the physician's diagnosis of multiple myeloma [9732/3]. Code the multiple myeloma as a single primary using rule M8 if there was only ONE positive biopsy. Code as multiple primaries (both the solitary plasmacytoma and multiple myeloma) using Rule M11 if there are TWO positive biopsies, one confirming the chronic neoplasm and the other confirming the acute neoplasm.
Per the Heme DB Abstractor Notes: The registrar DOES NOT CODE plasma cell myeloma based on the percentage of plasma cells. There must be a diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma. In addition, a clinical diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma may be made based on amyloidosis with associated renal impairment, anemia and/or hypercalcemia supported by radiologic evidence of multiple lytic bone lesions. he biopsy confirmed plasma cell malignancy (plasmacytoma) and the clinical workup confirmed myeloma.
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 |
|
|
20100102 | Behavior--Breast: How is behavior coded when a biopsy shows in situ carcinoma with a focus suspicious for invasion and a subsequent excision/resection shows only in situ carcinoma? | Code this case as in situ. The specimen from the excision/resection is the more reliable source for determining behavior, compared to a biopsy, especially in this case where the behavior is ambiguous on the biopsy. | 2010 | |
|
|
20100110 | Reportability--Esophagus/Stomach: Are the terms "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" synonymous with in situ for tumors in the gastrointestinal tract? See Discussion. |
SINQ 20000245 states that high grade or severe dysplasia in not synonymous with in situ disease. However, per page 109 in the 7th edition of AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, high grade dysplasia is the only term listed under Tis. A note on that page explains that "high-grade dysplasia includes all noninvasive neoplastic epithelia that was formerly called carcinoma in situ, a diagnosis that is no longer used for columnar mucosae anywhere in the gastrointestinal tract."
There has been considerable pressure from registrars at larger reporting facilities to re-address this issue. The pathologists at these facilities state that they are correctly documenting the presence of in situ disease when they use the term high grade dysplasia for gastrointestinal tract tumors. In their opinion, it is not necessary to add the term in situ in parentheses following the use of the term high grade dysplasia to clarify the behavior of these lesions in their pathology reports. If the term "carcinoma in situ" is no longer being used by many pathologists for sites in the gastrointestinal tract, won't this lead to underreporting of in situ disease for these sites unless the reportability guidelines are changed? |
For cancer reporting purposes, the terms "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" are not synonymous with in situ for tumors in the gastrointestinal tract. These cases are only reportable when the pathologist documents carcinoma in situ or intraepithelial neoplasia grade III, or when the registry includes in their policies and procedures the pathologist's statement that he/she uses HGD to mean the same as CIS.
Reportability laws are customarily based on ICD-O. Because "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" are not designated as in situ in the ICD-O, there is no legal authority to report these cases in most states.
NAACCR is reviewing this issue. See #5 on page 11 of the December 1, 2013 NAACCR Implementation document, http://www.naaccr.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=u7d3sB71t5w%3d&tabid=126&mid=466 |
2010 |
|
|
20100105 | Surgery of Primary Site--Brain and CNS: Is "debulking" of a primary brain tumor coded to 21 [subtotal resection of tumor] or 30 [gross resection of tumor]? | Assign code 21 [subtotal resection of tumor, lesion, or mass]. Debulking removes as much of the tumor volume as possible in cases where it is not possible to remove the entire tumor. Debulking should improve the effectiveness of subsequent radiation therapy and/or chemotherapy. | 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 |
|
|
20100015 | Type of Multiple Tumors/Multiplicity Counter--Breast. Are the data items "Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary" and "Multiplicity Counter" related? How should they be coded for breast cases in which there are multiple measured invasive tumors, plus DCIS which is not measured nor stated whether it is separate from the invasive tumors? See Discussion.
|
For example, path report states only "multifocal invasive ductal carcinoma, 1.5 cm and 0.8 cm, and low-grade DCIS." The Multiplicity Counter instructions tell us to ignore/do not count foci that are not measured. Should we interpret this to mean, count only the two invasive foci and ignore the DCIS? Should Type of Multiple Tumors then be coded 30 or 40, because only the invasive tumors are coded in Multiplicity Counter? | Code Type of Multiple Tumors 30 [in situ and invasive]. The code in Type of Multiple Tumors may or may not reflect the tumors that were counted in Multiplicity Counter. For this case, it is correct to code 02 in multiplicity counter. | 2010 |
An official website of the United States government
