Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20120009 | Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded when the pathology report states the morphologic features and immunophenotype of a low grade B-cell lymphoma are most compatible with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma or marginal zone lymphoma? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to 9591/3 [B-cell lymphoma, NOS] per Rule PH28 which states that one is to code the histology when the diagnosis is
There is only one non-specific histology code mentioned, low grade B-cell lymphoma. This term is synonymous with B-cell lymphoma, NOS.
Per the Multiple Primaries Calculator, when comparing the histology 9591/3 [B-cell lymphoma, NOS] and 9671/3 [lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma], it is the same primary. When comparing the histology 9591/3 [B-cell lymphoma, NOS] and 9699/3 [marginal zone lymphoma], it is the same 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. |
2012 | |
|
|
20120034 | Primary site--Brain and CNS: How is the primary site to be coded if a clinician used an MRI to diagnose a left cerebellar venous angioma? See Discussion. |
According to the WHO Classification of Brain/CNS Tumors, code 9122/0 (venous angioma) does not appear under tumors of the cerebellum (C716). |
Venous angiomas (9122/0) are not reportable wherever they arise. The primary site for venous angioma arising in the cerebellum is C490. The combination of 9122/0 and C490 is not reportable. Venous angioma is a venous abnormality, currently referred to as a developmental venous anomaly (DVA). |
2012 |
|
|
20120081 | Reportability: Is VIN II-III reportable? |
For cases diagnosed 2021 and later VIN II-III is reportable based on ICD-O-3.2 which lists squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II as 8077/2 making it reportable. Also see SINQ 20120094. |
2012 | |
|
|
20120093 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries -- Ovary: How many primaries are to be accessioned and what rule applies when a patient has a serous carcinoma of the right ovary treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by a debulking surgery that revealed a serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma of the left fallopian tube? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession two primaries, serous carcinoma of the right ovary and serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma of the left fallopian tube based on the information provided.
The steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) and go to the Other Sites MP rules because neither the ovary nor fallopian tube have site specific rules developed.
Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. The patient has multiple tumors with ICD-O-3 topography codes that are different at the third character (Cxx) and therefore this case should be accessioned as a multiple primary.
It could be helpful to know the extent of involvement noted prior to neoadjuvant therapy and debulking surgery. For example, if the patient had widely metastatic disease throughout the entire pelvis prior to the initiation of treatment, the answer may have been different. |
2012 | |
|
|
20120001 | Multiple primaries/Recurrence--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are abstracted if a patient was diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in 2001 and was diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma involving the larynx in 2011? See Discussion. | Does the medical oncologist's statement that this is a second malignancy, rather than a recurrence, given the length of the disease-free interval, affect the number of primaries abstracted? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Abstract a single primary per Rule M2; a single histology is a single primary diagnosed. The histology code for both the 2001 and 2011 diagnoses is 9680/3[diffuse large B-cell lymphoma]. Case is coded as diagnosed in 2001.
The hematopoietic physician experts say that the issue with lymphomas is that the patient may be disease-free then recur years later. Even though years have passed, this is still a recurrence or relapse. Currently, there are no molecular markers that are able to distinguish "new primaries" from recurrences. There are also no established criteria for timing rules that could be used to determine a new primary from a recurrence.
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. |
2012 |
|
|
20120062 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned if a patient has a history of breast cancer in 2006 treated with bilateral mastectomies and in 2011 is found to have invasive carcinoma in "breast tissue, right lumpectomy"? See Discussion. |
Patient was originally diagnosed in June 2006, with right breast cancer and underwent lumpectomy and chemotherapy. This was followed by a bilateral mastectomy with reconstruction in January of 2007 that showed no residual tumor in the breast but 1 positive right axillary lymph node. The patient started Arimidex in May 2007 and had ongoing follow-up. In November 2011, the patient noted a "lump to her right upper reconstructed breast at approximately 2:00." Needle biopsy in December 2011 showed invasive carcinoma and the patient underwent a lumpectomy. The lumpectomy pathology report stated, "Breast tissue, right, lumpectomy: poorly differentiated infiltrating ductal cancer." There is no comparison of the current pathology to the previous pathology, as the previous lumpectomy/mastectomy was done at another facility. The patient is being treated at this facility with radiation as if this is a "recurrent/persistent right sided breast cancer." Should this case be classified as a new primary because the pathology report indicates the malignancy was in breast tissue? Or is this actually a chest wall recurrence given the fact that the patient was previously treated with bilateral mastectomies? Should this case be treated as indicated in SINQ 20110111? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession two primaries, right breast cancer diagnosed in June 2006 and a subsequent right breast primary diagnosed in December 2011. The steps used to arrive at this decision are: Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). Go to the Breast MP rules because site specific rules exist for this primary. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M4. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. Accession two primaries, tumors diagnosed more than five (5) years apart are multiple primaries. If the pathology report stated the tumor originated in residual breast tissue, then this is a new tumor and, therefore, a new primary per rule M5. If the pathology report stated the tumor arose in the chest wall and/or there is no designation of residual breast tissue, then this is a regional metastasis and not a new primary. |
2012 |
|
|
20120068 | Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the correct histology code for a diagnosis of mature B cell leukemia/lymphoma diagnosed only on a peripheral blood smear? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to 9591/3 [B-cell lymphoma, NOS].
After searching the Heme DB for the term , no B-cell leukemia/lymphoma NOS code is found. However, the diagnosis of B-cell lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma is found. This case scenario does not specify that this is a lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma; therefore, the histology code 9811/3 [B-cell lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma, NOS] cannot be applied.
A subsequent search of the Heme DB for the term returns "Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS" [9591/3]. Under the Alternative Names section of the Heme DB, B-cell lymphoma, NOS, is a synonym for Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS. Therefore, the B-cell lymphoma NOS code [9591/3] is the most appropriate histology code to use for this case.
This will be added to the next revision of the Heme DB and Manual.
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. |
2012 | |
|
|
20120057 | Reportability--Appendix: Is a low grade mucinous neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential with an in situ mucinous cystadenoma component reportable? See Discussion. | The patient was diagnosed with pseudomyxoma peritonei and the pathology report final diagnosis stated, "Low grade mucinous neoplasm, of uncertain malignant potential, involving a dilated appendix (5cm) with the following features: In situ mucinous cystadenoma component is identified, with low-grade cytology of neoplastic epithelium." Does the presence of an in situ component make this mucinous cystadenoma of the appendix reportable based on the ICD-O-3 matrix rule? | This diagnosis is not reportable. Cystadenoma is not reportable. The "in situ" description in this case does not make cystadenoma reportable.
According to our expert pathologist consultant, this is a "non-invasive, low grade, epithelial proliferation in an often cystic appendiceal tumor, 8480/1. If this has leaked or ruptured it can seed the peritoneal cavity causing pseudomyxoma peritonei." |
2012 |
|
|
20120045 | Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the primary site of a diffuse large B-cell lymphoma described on a PET and an abdominal CT scan as a large pelvic mass displacing bladder and uterus, inseparable from anus, right pelvic sidewall, cervix and bilateral ovaries and per the clinician as stage IIE? See Discussion. | PET: large pelvic mass displacing bladder and uterus, inseparable from anus, right pelvic sidewall, cervix and bilateral ovaries. Diffuse abnormal uptake within this mass as well as the adjacent structures. No regional hypermetabolic adenopathy is noted and no imaging evidence of distant metastatic disease. The PET also demonstrated diffuse abnormal uptake within the pelvic mass as well as the adjacent structures.
CT abdomen: large pelvic mass invading vagina and inseparable from the anus, right pelvic sidewall, cervix and bilateral ovaries.
MD states: "stage IIE with invasion of vagina." |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule 18, code the primary site to C775 [pelvic lymph nodes]. Per Rule PH18, code the primary site to the specified lymph node region when the site of lymphoma is described only as a mass. This rule also indicates that the Code pelvic lymph nodes [C775] when the lymph nodes are described as a pelvic mass.
This rule has been effect for SEER for over 20 years. It is based on the fact that a number of lymphomas that originate in nodes are not diagnosed until those nodes become matted or fixed. The presentation is then one of a "mass" in those nodal regions.
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. |
2012 |
|
|
20120032 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Melanoma: How is the histology coded for an invasive melanoma stated to have a "superficial spreading growth pattern"? See Discussion. |
Some facilities in our reporting region submit pathology reports that document invasive melanoma cases with a subtype stated to be a "growth pattern." The MP/H rules state that we are not to use the term "pattern" to code the histology of invasive tumors. However, applying this rule means the more specific histology will not be recorded for any of these cases. Can the term "growth pattern" be a more specific histologic type for invasive melanomas when no other information is available? |
Code the histology as superficial spreading melanoma [8743/3]. For cases diagnosed 2007-2014, the steps used to arrive at this decision are: Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a melanoma primary, use the Melanoma Histology rules to determine the histology code because there are site specific rules for cutaneous melanomas. Start at Rule H1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the applicable Module. Code the most specific histologic term when the diagnosis is melanoma, NOS [8720] with a single specific type, superficial spreading in this case. The subtype of this invasive melanoma is "superficial spreading." A change will be made to Rule 9 in next update to indicate "growth pattern" can be used to describe an invasive histology. |
2012 |
An official website of the United States government
