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: 11/21/2025 12:22 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20130138

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a 2010 diagnosis of a preleukemic condition is subsequently diagnosed in 2012 with a specific leukemia that is not listed as a transformation? See Discussion.

10/02/10 bone marrow biopsy showed myelodysplastic syndrome, unclassified [9989/3].

6/19/12 bone marrow biopsy showed chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML-2) [9945/3].

CMML-2 is not listed as an acute neoplasm for MDS. Is this the same disease? Per the pre-2010 rules, this would be the same disease. The current Heme DB indicates these are separate primaries.

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

This case should be accessioned as two primaries, myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) [9989/3] diagnosed 10/2/10 and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML-2) [9945/3] diagnosed 6/19/12 per Rule M15. Per Rule M15, use the Multiple Primaries Calculator when rules M1-M14 do not apply.

When myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) became reportable, the rules in effect at that time resulted in MDS often being the only diagnosis reported when both MDS and a leukemia were diagnosed. Statistics for some leukemias were impacted. Now we report both the MDS and the leukemia for greater accuracy.

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
20130102

Histology--Heme & Lymph Neoplasms: Is follicular lymphoma, high grade synonymous with grade 3 lymphoma [9698/3] or is the "high grade" ignored and the histology coded to follicular lymphoma, NOS [9690]?

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

Code histology to 9698/3 [follicular lymphoma, grade 3].

Follicular lymphoma, high grade is listed under the Alternate Names section of the Heme DB for Follicular lymphoma, grade 3.

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
20130170

MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What is the histology code for "invasive carcinoma of the breast, no special type" as the final diagnosis on a pathology report? See Discussion.

Recently pathology reports for breast primaries are no longer listing invasive ductal carcinoma as the histology on many cases if the treating physician calls the cancer an invasive ductal carcinoma. The pathology report (final diagnosis and synopsis) state this is invasive carcinoma, no special type.

Upon inquiry to the pathology department, the response received stated, In 2012, the WHO got rid of ductal carcinoma as a specific type. So what would have been called Invasive ductal carcinoma, Not Otherwise Specified (NOS), is now being called Invasive carcinoma, No Special Type (NST). In the new WHO classification, lobular, tubular, cribriform, mucinous, etc. are the special types. But ductal is gone.

Is this a change in terminology? Should these cases be coded as 8500/3 [ductal carcinoma, NOS] or 8010/3 [carcinoma, NOS]?

Code the histology to ductal carcinoma, NOS [8500/3] for a pathology report with a final diagnosis of "invasive carcinoma, no special type." Do not code the histology to carcinoma, NOS [8010/3].

The 4th Edition of the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Breast refers to invasive ductal carcinoma as invasive carcinoma, no special type. The ICD-O-3 code remains the same as invasive duct carcinoma [8500/3]. The next revision to the MP/H Solid Tumor Rules will clarify this issue.

2013
20130068 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is polycythemia, NOS reportable? See Discussion. The physician states the patient has polycythemia. There is no confirmation of primary polycythemia nor is there mention of polycythemia vera. JAK2 was negative.

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

Polycythemia, NOS is not reportable. Polycythemia, NOS is not a synonym for polycythemia vera and, therefore, is not reportable. To be reportable the diagnosis must be polycythemia vera, or one of the other terms listed in the Alternate Names section of the Heme DB.

Polycythemia (also known as erythrocytosis) is a disease state in which the proportion of blood volume that is occupied by red blood cells increases. Blood volume proportions can be measured as a hematocrit level. It can be due to an increase in the mass of red blood cells ("absolute polycythemia"); or to a decrease in the volume of plasma ("relative polycythemia").

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
20130178 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is refractory iron deficiency anemia reportable? Per Appendix F, refractory iron deficiency anemia is not reportable. It is not a clonal disorder and, therefore, is not malignant. Refractory iron deficiency anemia is a condition that is unresponsive to oral iron treatment. 2013
20130206 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What rule applies to code a primary site for a peripheral blood diagnosis of marginal zone lymphoma that has a positive flow cytometry/FISH analysis when no biopsies are performed, scans show no evidence of disease, exam indicates no lymph nodes are palpable and the physician's clinical diagnosis "marginal zone lymphoma, unspecified site, stage 1"? See Discussion.

PE: No palpable lymph nodes.

PET scan: No spleen or lymph node uptake; no uptake anywhere in the body.

Peripheral blood and flow cytometry/FISH analysis diagnosis: Marginal zone lymphoma.

No bone marrow or biopsy of any lymph nodes done. Doctor states "marginal zone lymphoma, unspecified site, stage 1."

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

Per Rule PH27, code the primary site to C809 [unknown primary]. According to Rule PH27 one is to code the primary site to unknown primary site C809 when there is no evidence of lymphoma in lymph nodes AND the physician documents in the medical record that he/she suspects that the lymphoma originates in an organ(s) OR multiple organ involvement without any nodal involvement.

If further workup is done and a primary site is determined, update the primary site for this case.

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
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
20130043

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is reactive plasmacytosis a reportable diagnosis that is equivalent to plasmacytoma?

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

Reactive plasmacytosis is not reportable unless there is another indication of a reportable neoplastic disease. Reactive plasmacytosis is "a well known pathological process described as occurring in a variety of situations including infections, autoimmune disease, diabetes mellitus, sideropenia, liver cirrhosis and neoplastic conditions including leukemia. This process, by definition, is assumed to be a reaction of the immune system to an unknown or poorly defined stimulus." Based on this definition, reactive plasmacytosis is not the same as a plasmacytoma, although it may indicate the presence of a neoplastic process, such as leukemia.

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
20130183

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a peripheral blood finding consistent with involvement by monoclonal, lambda-restricted mature B cell population with co-expression of CD5 and CD23 reportable if, immunophenotypically, the case is consistent with a chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma? See Discussion.

Peripheral blood: Final diagnosis: Leukocytosis absolute lymphocytosis monoclonal, lambda restricted B-cell population w/co-expression of CD5 and CD23 absolute increase in CD4=helper T cells. See comment.

Comment: Peripheral blood findings are consistent with involvement by monoclonal, lambda-restricted mature B cell population with co-expression of CD5 and CD23, which is immunophenotypically consistent with a chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma immunophenotype. However, the absolute monoclonal population is only 3.02k/ul.

According to WHO criteria, in the absence of extramedullary tissue involvement, the monoclonal lymphocyte population must be greater than or equal to 5.0 k/ul. Therefore, in the absence of clinical evidence of extramedullary tissue involvement, the diagnosis is most consistent with a monoclonal B cell lymphocytosis. Review of initial analysis reveals well-defined groups of cells within lymphocyte, monocyte and granulocyte gates as defined by CD45 and sid-scatter characteristics (%'s are listed). Overall, peripheral blood findings are consistent with involvement by monoclonal, lambada-restricted B cell population with a chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma immunophenotype.

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

This case is reportable. Code histology to 9823/3 [CLL/SLL].

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 on peripheral blood that is "consistent with" involvement by chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) immunophenotype.

The ambiguous terminology "consistent with" in the flow cytometry report is acceptable to determine reportability. Given that it is the only reportable histology mentioned in the scenario, it is also used to code histology. The instruction "Do not code histology based on ambiguous terminology" is intended to be used when there is a reportable NOS histology and reportable more specific histology stated in the diagnosis. Ambiguous terminology cannot be used to report the more specific diagnosis in cases of Heme & Lymphoid neoplasms.

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
20130218 2013