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: 07/28/2025 23:51 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20130134

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: According to the hematopoietic database, systemic mastocytosis is reportable; does that include INDOLENT systemic mastocytosis (which is not listed in the list of alternative names)?

For cases diagnosed 2018 and forward, indolent systemic mastocytosis is not reportable (9741/1). Smoldering systemic mastocytosis is reportable (9741/3).

 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
20130148 Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are "spinal" schwannomas reportable if stated to be extradural, vertebral nerve sheath, or of specific vertebrae? See Discussion.

Are any of the following cases reportable?

Example 1: Clinical Diagnosis: Extradural spinal cord tumor compatible with schwannoma. What assumptions should be made about reportability if the tumor is described as being extradural? The extradural spinal cord includes epidural fat surrounding the thecal sac and exiting nerve roots. Does this mean there are not nerve roots in the extradural spinal cord?

Example 2: Final Pathologic Diagnosis: Designated "C3-4 nerve sheath tumor" excision: Morphologic and immunohistochemical findings consistent with cellular schwannoma. When stated to be a "nerve sheath tumor" does that mean peripheral nerve (C47_) involvement or nerve root (C72_) involvement?

Example 3: Final Pathologic Diagnosis: T-8 vertebral tumor resection: Schwannoma with degenerative changes (calcification, cyst formation) - ganglion and nerve are identified. There is no mention clinically or pathologically whether this tumor is "intradural" or "of the nerve root." In the absence of information about whether the location of the tumor is intradural or involving the nerve root, is it assumed that it does involve this part of the spinal cord when a specific vertebrae is removed?

Extradural schwannomas are not reportable. Neither vertebral nerve sheath nor a location of/on a specific vertebrae confirm the origin as being either extradural or intradural. Do not report a schwannoma if it cannot be determined to be "intradural" or "of the nerve root." 2013
20130132 Diagnostic confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the diagnostic confirmation code for a death certificate only (DCO) diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia?

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

Always code diagnostic confirmation to 9 [Unknown whether or not microscopically confirmed; death certificate only] for DCO cases.

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
20130213 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How do you code the primary site for a marginal zone lymphoma involving bilateral axillary lymph nodes and inguinal lymph nodes, bone marrow and bilateral orbits that the physician refers to as a bilateral orbital lymphoma, Stage IV? See Discussion.

None of the rules seem to apply when the lymphoma is present in an organ, distant lymph nodes and bone marrow only. No regional nodes are involved.

Does rule PH22 infer that the organ should be coded as the primary site because it has been named by the physician?

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

Per Rule PH24, code primary site to orbit. According to Rule PH24, one is to code the primary site to the organ when lymphoma is present only in an organ. Note 2 under this rule also instructs one to capture the secondary involvement of distant lymph nodes and/or bone marrow in CS extension fields.

If the physician had not confirmed the primary site as orbit, you would have used Rule PH22 when the primary site is not indicated.

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
20130031

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a plasmacytoma of the intervertebral disc is diagnosed in 2010 followed by a diagnosis of immature plasma cell myeloma by a right hip biopsy in 2011? See Discussion.

The patient was diagnosed with intervertebral disc plasmacytoma and had radiation therapy to the pelvic bones in 2010. In 2011 (more than 21 days later) a right hip biopsy revealed immature plasma cell myeloma. There is clinical documentation that this is progression into myeloma. Per the Heme DB (Primary Site(s) and Definition sections) and Rule PH30, in the Heme Manual, the primary site is coded to C421 [bone marrow] and the histology is coded 9732/3 [plasma cell myeloma] when there is a clinical diagnosis of multiple myeloma and/or there is no documentation of a bone marrow biopsy or the results are unknown. This patient did have a bone marrow biopsy that indicates there are an increased plasma cells present; plasma cells represent less than 10%. The skeletal survey and bone scan did not reveal any further lesions.

Is this progression of disease because there is only one lesion in the right hip 8 months after the diagnosis of plasmacytoma? Or is this a second primary based on the right hip biopsy that showed plasma cell myeloma and the physician's documentation of disease progression? Plasmacytomas are usually single lesions. Would this disease process have multiple lesions if they are diagnosed at different times?

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

This case is accessioned as two primaries: Plasmacytoma diagnosed in 2010 and plasma cell myeloma diagnosed in 2011 per Rule M10. The patient has a diagnosis of a solitary plasmacytoma (chronic neoplasm) followed by a diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma (acute neoplasm) diagnosed greater than 21 days later.

The physician is calling this a progression to plasma cell myeloma even though the bone marrow has less than 10% plasma cells, take this statement as progression or a clinical diagnosis of plasma cell 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.

 2013
20130088 Grade--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should Grade be coded to 5 [T-cell] or 9 [cell type not determined, not stated, not applicable] for anaplastic large cell lymphoma, NOS [9714/3]? See Discussion.

Under the Grade section in the Heme DB for anaplastic large cell lymphoma, NOS it indicates the following:

"Grade - Code grade specified by pathologist. If no grade specified, code 9."

There is no reference in the Grade section that we should look at the Abstractor Notes or a specific Module in the Heme DB for additional information. However, in the Abstractor Notes section it states, "Grade is T-cell (5) unless pathologist specifically designates as a B-cell (see G2 rule)." These two statements are conflicting. Which is the correct grade?

Assign code 5 [T-cell] for anaplastic large cell lymphoma [9714/3] unless the pathologist specifies that the histology is a B-cell disease process. See Grade rule G2, Note 2.

In the Heme DB, there is a default value in the Grade field for histologies that do not have a grade specified. However, this particular histology does not default to code 9. There was an error in the Grade section of the 2010 and 2012 versions of Heme DB that has now been corrected in the latest release.

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
20130115 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology coded when the biopsy final diagnosis is "low grade B-cell lymphoma of unclear subtype (splenic marginal zone lymphoma?)" and the hematologist clinically diagnoses this as splenic marginal zone lymphoma? See Discussion.

This patient has massive splenomegaly. The biopsy final diagnosis was "low grade B lymphoma of unclear subtype (splenic marginal zone lymphoma?)." The pathologist's comment states, "Because of the clinical context (lymphocytosis and splenomegaly) a splenic marginal zone lymphoma is a possibility." There are no other histologic diagnoses. All the flow cytometry reports are as unclear as the biopsy.

The hematologist, after seeing the pathology report, states, "The bone marrow biopsy shows a significant infiltration by mature lymphocytes; their markers strongly suggest a marginal zone lymphoma, probably of splenic origin The final diagnosis is a splenic marginal zone lymphoma."

Should the clinical diagnosis of splenic marginal zone lymphoma [9689/3] be coded when a clinical diagnosis is not listed as a definitive diagnostic method for this neoplasm? Or should the histology be coded as low grade B-cell lymphoma [9591/3]? The clinicians will expect the case to be coded as a splenic marginal zone lymphoma when there's no doubt about the diagnosis.

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

Code the histology to 9689/3 [splenic marginal zone lymphoma] per Rule PH29 and Case Reportability Instruction #6 in the Heme Manual. Case Reportability Instruction #6 indicates, "Report the case when there is a (physician's statement) of reportable hematopoietic or lymphoid neoplasm."

The pathology gave an NOS diagnosis, low grade B-cell lymphoma [9591/3]. The physician clinically stated this was a splenic marginal zone lymphoma [9689/3]. Rule PH 29 states to code the specific histology when the diagnosis is one non-specific histology AND one specific histology AND the Heme DB MP Calculator indicates they are the same primary. Per the Multiple Primaries Calculator, these two histologies indicate 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.

2013
20130030

Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology coded for a patient diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, immunoblastic [9684/3] in 2009 and a recurrence in 2010 at another facility was referred to as plasmablastic lymphoma [9735/3]? See Discussion.

Which code is correct for the merged record? Is code 9735/3 [plasmablastic lymphoma] correct because code 9684/3 [DLBCL, immunoblastic] is now obsolete?

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

This case was originally diagnosed in 2009, prior to the development of Hematopoietic Database. Therefore it is necessary to use the ICD-O-3 to code histology to 9684/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, immunoblastic]. Use the original histology diagnosed for the merged record because DLBCL, immunoblastic, and plasmablastic lymphoma are the same primary. Do not change the histology to code 9735/3 [plasmablastic lymphoma].

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