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: 09/21/2025 17:33 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20110135

MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: Per SINQ 20110115, why is micropapillary adenocarcinoma of the lung coded to 8260 [papillary adenocarcinoma] rather than 8050 [papillary carcinoma]?

The histology codes for lung tumors are based on the World Health Organization Classification of Lung Tumors. Chart 1 in the MP/H Lung Equivalent Terms, Definitions, Charts, Tables and Illustrations (2007 MP/H Rules Manual) illustrates the WHO Classification of Lung Tumors.

Using Chart 1, note that papillary adenocarcinoma [8260] is located under the Adenocarcinoma (NOS) branch. The histology in question was stated to be "micropapillary adenocarcinoma" and not "papillary carcinoma." Papillary carcinoma, NOS [8050] is not actually located on the chart. However, papillary squamous cell carcinoma is listed under the Squamous Cell Carcinoma, NOS branch, histology code 8052.

Next, look up papillary carcinoma [8050] in the Morphology - Numerical listing section of the ICD-O-3. Papillary carcinoma, NOS is a Squamous Cell Neoplasm. (Refer also to SINQ 20091040.)

The key word used to determine the appropriate histology in this case is "adenocarcinoma." This is a papillary adenocarcinoma and not a papillary squamous neoplasm.

 2011
20110009 Diagnostic confirmation/Date of diagnosis--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are these fields coded for a 2/11/10 negative bone marrow biopsy with cytogenetic abnormalities if the physician makes a clinical diagnosis of refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia on 2/25/10? See Discussion.

2/11/10 bone marrow biopsy revealed "mild trilineal dysplastic changes in conjunction with chronicity of cytopenias is worrisome for MDS." Cytogenetics are positive for 5q deletion. Clinicopathologic correlation required for final diagnosis. On 2/25/10 the physician confirms a diagnosis of refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia.

Is the date of diagnosis 2/11/10 with diagnostic confirmation of 3 or 2/25/10 with diagnostic confirmation of 8?

The date of diagnosis is 2/25/10 and diagnostic confirmation is coded to 8 [clinical diagnosis only].

As the cytogenetics state, you need clinicopathologic correlation to get confirm a reportable diagnosis. There is no reportable diagnosis from the bone marrow biopsy. The cytogenetics were done (the pathologic part) and then the physician confirmed refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia [9985/3] (the clinical part). The diagnostic process and the determination of a reportable diagnosis were completed when the clinician made the statement that this is refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia.

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.

2011
20110096 Behavior--Lung: How is behavior to be coded for a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of a lung tumor that is further classified per the CAP protocol as, "non-mucinous bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma (adenocarcinoma in situ)" while the pathologist also classifies the tumor as pT1b, pN0? See Discussion. Is the following case coded with an invasive or in situ behavior when a RUL lobectomy specimen reveals adenocarcinoma and the Histologic Type per the CAP protocol layout is non-mucinous bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma (adenocarcinoma in situ)? The stage per the pathologist is pT1b, pN0. Per the COMMENT section in the pathology report, "The terminology adenocarcinoma in situ is based on a recent publication in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology (Volume 6, #2, February 2011). Based on this criterion, the behavior represents adenocarcinoma in situ with no evident invasive component." Code the behavior as in situ. The pathologist has the final say on the behavior of the tumor. This pathologist is indicating that in his opinion based on a recent publication, this tumor is in situ. 2011
20110071 Primary site: How is this field coded for an adenocarcinoma arising in a chronic perianal fistula without extension to the anal canal, but stated to arise in "ectopic rectal tissue"? See Discussion.

The patient underwent a resection of a perineal mass. Per review of slides it was stated to be "primary mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in a chronic perianal fistula." The adenocarcinoma was invasive into the dermal connective tissue and skeletal muscle, but there was no extension into the anal canal. The discharge diagnosis from the reporting facility called this adenocarcinoma of "ectopic rectal tissue in perianal area."

Should the primary site be coded to skin based on the dermal involvement and lack of anal or rectal involvement? Or, should the primary site be coded to rectum based on the physician's assessment that this adenocarcinoma arose in ectopic rectal tissue?

For cases diagnosed 2007-2014:

Code the Primary Site field to C210 [Anus, NOS]. This is an unusual and rare presentation. According to our expert pathologist, "There is no ideal site code [for] this case. I would code to C210. In this location it can at least be located by anyone who wants to get a look at such lesions. Because of the unusual location of this tumor, I would like to be able to code it to perineum, but it will be totally lost in those site codes as they represent extensive areas beyond perianal (skin of trunk, soft tissue of pelvis, and pelvis, respectively)... I would not code to rectum [because it would be] lost among too many primary rectal carcinomas."

 2011
20110024 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded, and which MP/H rule applies for a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ with clear cell features? See Discussion.

None of the histology rules for in situ breast seem to apply to this case:

  • Rule H3 doesn't seem to apply because "clear cell" is not a specific intraductal carcinoma.

  • Rule H6 doesn't seem to apply because there is not a combination of intraductal and 2 or more specific types of intraductal.

  • Rule H8 wouldn't apply because one of the types is intraductal.

    • For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    Code 8523/2 [intraductal carcinoma mixed with other types of in situ carcinoma]. Rule H6 should apply to this case.

    The wording in the Rule H6 needs to be clarified to handle a case of intraductal carcinoma with one or more subtypes that are not ductal. This will also require a modification to Table 3. A row needs to be added to the table labeled, "Intraductal and one or more of the histologies in Column 2." The Column 3 text for the newly added row would read, " Intraductal mixed with other types of carcinoma." The appropriate histology code to be reported per Column 4 would be 8523/2. This will be done in the next revision of the rules.

    		2011
    		20110149

    Ambiguous Terminology/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are the histology and diagnostic confirmation to be coded when the pathology report's final diagnosis is "plasma cell dyscrasia consistent with plasma cell myeloma" and the physician subsequently states this diagnosis was plasma cell myeloma? See Discussion.

    Pathologists often use the diagnosis "plasma cell dyscrasia" followed by an ambiguous term such as "consistent with" or "favors" with a more specific histology such as "plasma cell myeloma." Per initial training for Hematopoietic, ambiguous terminology is not used to code the histology for Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms. Should the histology be coded as plasma cell dyscrasia (which is not found in the Heme DB or Manual) because the pathology report uses ambiguous terminology to describe the plasma cell myeloma?

    If the physician subsequently states the diagnosis is "plasma cell myeloma" in a note following the pathology, should the histology be coded as plasma cell myeloma based on that diagnosis as there was no ambiguous terminology used?

    How is the diagnostic confirmation coded for this case? Should this be a positive histology diagnosis (diagnostic confirmation code 1) if the pathology diagnosis uses ambiguous terminology only?

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

    The histology is coded as Plasma cell myeloma [9732/3]. The diagnostic confirmation is coded to 1 [positive histology].

    Under the Definitive Diagnostic Methods section in the Heme DB it indicates that a bone marrow aspiration and bone marrow biopsy are procedures used to diagnose this disease process. This patient's diagnosis was based on the pathology (presumably from a bone marrow biopsy).

    NOTE: This is a reportable case. Ambiguous terminology is used to accession cases (determine reportability) because it has been used for over 30 years to do so. Any deviation from using ambiguous terminology to determine case reportability would cause the reporting of incidence counts to vary. In this case, there was a reportable, ambiguous terminology diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma on the pathology report; as well as a reportable physician's statement/diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma.

    Ambiguous terminology, however, is not used to report a more specific diagnosis for the Heme & Lymphoid neoplasms. For example, if the pathology report final diagnosis was "Myeloproliferative neoplasm, probably Polycythemia Vera" the histology would be coded as myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable [9975/3]. The ambiguous terminology indicates that the genetic testing, immunophenotyping, etc., probably are not complete or are not diagnostic of the more specific disease. Wait to code the histology until there is a definite diagnosis given.

    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.

    		 2011
    		20110123

    Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Are the terms EBV positive B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder with or without the term "of the elderly" and iatrogenic EBV positive lymphoproliferative disorder reportable? See Discussion.

    The only reportable term listed is "EBV positive B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder of the elderly." Are the following cases reportable?

    • Does the diagnosis of EBV positive B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder specifically have to include the expression "of the elderly" to be reportable? Is there an age range associated with the term "of the elderly"?
    • Is "iatrogenic EBV positive lymphoproliferative disorder" reportable?
    • Is a diagnosis of "EBV positive B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder" reportable when there is no further classification of the LPD as lymphoma?

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

    1. EBV positive B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder is reportable. Code EBV positive lymphoproliferative disorder as DLBCL [9680/3], the term "of the elderly" does not have to be part of the diagnosis.
    • The term "iatrogenic" simply means that there is no known cause for the disease. Iatrogenic EBV positive lymphoproliferative disorder is reportable.
    • EBV positive B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder is a synonym for DLBCL [9680/3]. You do not need to have the lymphoma (DLBCL) diagnosis.

    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.

    		 2011
    		20110050

    MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries: How many primaries are to be abstracted when a patient was initially diagnosed with epithelioid sarcoma in 2003, underwent multiple resections, radiation, and ultimately partial amputation of the limb in 2010, each with margins positive for residual epithelioid sarcoma? See Discussion.

    In Dec. 2003 a patient was diagnosed with epithelioid sarcoma of the left palm. In Jan. 2004 the patient had an excision with skin graft and positive margins. Amputation was recommended but the patient chose radiation instead. In May 2006 the patient had a local excision positive for epithelioid sarcoma followed by an amputation of the thumb and index finger with positive margins. Then in April 2010, the patient had an amputation of the remnant of left hand up to the middle third of the forearm. Again, there was residual distal invasive tumor positive for epithelioid sarcoma.

    This is a single primary, epithelioid sarcoma of the left upper limb, diagnosed in 2003. The sarcoma progressed over the years and the patient was never free of disease -- positive margins were documented at each surgical event. Per the 2004 SEER Manual coding rules in place at the time of pre-2007 recurrences, they would not be multiple primaries according to Rule 5, exception 1.

    The occurrence in 2010 is also not a new primary. The steps used to arrive at this decision are as follows.

    Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a soft tissue primary, use one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Other Sites MP rules to determine the number of primaries because soft tissue primaries do not have site specific rules.

    Start with the UNKNOWN IF SINGLE OR MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module that applies for this case. In this module there is only one rule.

    . This patient was never disease free and it is unknown if this tumor was the same tumor (single tumor) or multiple tumors. Abstract a single primary for this patient.

    		 2011
    		20110058 Date of diagnosis/Flag: Will the Date of Diagnosis Flag ever be used if the instructions for coding Date of Diagnosis are followed? See Discussion.

    If an abstractor follows the instructions for coding the Date of Diagnosis and can at least estimate a year of diagnosis, in what scenario will the Flag be used?

    Per the 2010 SEER Manual,

    Page 49 Date of Diagnosis, second paragraph, "Regardless of the format, at least Year of diagnosis must be known or estimated. Year of diagnosis cannot be blank or unknown." The manual gives the following guidelines for coding diagnosis date/flag:

    Page 50, Coding Instructions:

    3. If no information about the date of diagnosis is available

    a. Use the date of admission as the date of diagnosis

    b. In the absence of an admission date, code the date of first treatment as the date of diagnosis.

    Page 51, Coding Instructions:

    9. Estimate the date of diagnosis if an exact date is not available. Use all information available to calculate the month and year of diagnosis.

    Page 53, Date of Diagnosis Flag, Coding Instructions:

    Always leave blank. Date of Diagnosis will always be a full or partial date recorded.

    		 The date of diagnosis flag should always be blank. 2011
    		20110106 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site to be coded for a 2010 diagnosis of follicular lymphoma involving the spleen and lymph nodes above and below the diaphragm?

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

    Use Rule PH21 to code the primary site to C778 [lymph nodes of multiple regions]. The spleen is not listed under the Primary Site(s) section in the Heme DB for follicular lymphoma. Per Rule PH21 code the primary site to multiple lymph node regions, NOS (C778) when multiple lymph node regions, as defined by ICD-O-3, are involved and it is not possible to identify the lymph node region where the lymphoma originated. The spleen is a primary site for only a few lymphomas (noted in the Heme DB). Because the spleen filters blood, it is often reactive (splenomegaly) or frankly involved with the lymphoma. That reaction or involvement, however, does not affect the primary site coding. Only the involved nodes are used in coding 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.

    		2011