Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20120002 | Histology/Diagnostic confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are histology and diagnostic confirmation coded when a patient has a clinical diagnosis of lymphoma but a pathologic diagnosis of malignant neoplasm, NOS? See Discussion. |
This patient had CT scans showing extensive bilateral retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy suspicious for lymphoma and left axillary lymphadenopathy. Thin core biopsies were done of the left axillary lymph nodes and immunohistology pathology was read as malignant neoplasm with extensive necrosis. Flow cytometry analysis of the sample shows no definitive or sufficient CD45+ events for informative analysis. Karyotype analysis could not be performed on this specimen due to inadequate sample. FISH analysis using IGH break apart probe showed no evidence of clonal rearrangement in limited number of cells available for analysis. The physician's diagnosis is probable lymphoma, no further workup felt necessary because patient would not tolerate chemotherapy anyway and hospice was felt most appropriate care for patient.
The definitive diagnostic method for lymphoma, NOS is histologic confirmation, but the only histologic confirmation was of "malignant neoplasm with extensive necrosis." Should the histology and diagnostic confirmation be coded as lymphoma, NOS [9590/3] and imaging without microscopic confirmation [7] or malignancy, NOS [8000/3] and positive histology [1]? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to 9590/3 [malignant lymphoma, NOS] and the diagnostic confirmation to 7 [radiology and other imaging techniques without microscopic confirmation]. Per the Diagnostic Confirmation Coding Instructions for Heme and Lymphatic Neoplasms, use code 1 when ONLY the biopsy was used to diagnose the specific histology. The biopsy only confirmed a malignancy; the scan confirmed the specific diagnosis of lymphoma.
Note that a clinical diagnosis can be a definitive diagnostic method for malignant lymphoma, NOS. In this case, the biopsy was inadequate and a more specific diagnosis could not be made by histology. Because no further work-up was pursued, this NOS diagnosis of malignant lymphoma was a clinical diagnosis only.
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20110155 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a patient shows evidence of "MDS as well as essential thrombocytosis and JAK2 mutation positive polycythemia vera" 18 years after a diagnosis of "thrombocytosis and probable polycythemia that progressed to probable myelofibrosis"? See Discussion | Per consultation: an 83 year old patient started on hydroxurea 18 years ago following a diagnosis of thrombocytosis and probable polycythemia. It appears the polycythemia progressed to probable myelofibrosis. The possibility of an MDS needs to be considered.
Problem list: Polycythemia with probable progression to myelofibrosis or MDS.
Bone marrow biopsy two weeks later shows some progression of dysmegakaryocytopoiesis. Patient has evidence of MDS, as well as essential thrombocytosis and JAK2 mutation positive polycythemia vera.
On follow-up visit six weeks later: Continue to manage patient with hydroxyurea.
An additional six months later: Diagnosis is polycythemia with thrombocytosis. |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case should be accessioned as a single primary. Code the histology to 9920/3 [therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome].
The reportable diagnoses must first be separated from the non-reportable diagnoses mentioned in the consult. Thrombocytosis (NOS), polycythemia (NOS), and myelofibrosis (NOS) are not reportable terms. To verify this, look up each term in the Heme DB. No database matches list the preferred name or the alternative names as any of these NOS terms.
The reportable diagnoses are all from the post-bone marrow biopsy consult, "evidence of MDS, as well as essential thrombocytosis and JAK2 mutation positive polycythemia vera." The subsequent notes in the consult again only refer to this as non-reportable polycythemia (NOS) or thrombocytosis (NOS). Keep in mind that this patient has been undergoing treatment with chemotherapy (hydroxyurea) for many years for polycythemia (NOS); the patient was diagnosed with polycythemia, "about 18 years ago."
According to the Subject Matter Experts, as MDS progresses, it may manifest as several different subtypes, this is a part of the disease process and abstracting each subtype would result in over-reporting this disease. This patient has a complicated history. The consult information does not adequately document whether this patient's initial diagnosis of "polycythemia" was primary polycythemia (reportable) or a secondary polycythemia (not reportable). If the patient was initially diagnosed with a primary polycythemia 18 years ago the current diagnosis of "JAK2 mutation positive polycythemia vera" would not be a new primary. The manifestation of ET may be due to the progression of MDS. In either case, this patient does have a therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome which is the same primary as both PV and ET.
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 |
|
|
20110154 | Behavior--Breast: Is a breast biopsy diagnosis of "ductal carcinoma in situ with focal and very early stromal invasion" an invasive tumor with a behavior code 3? |
Code the behavior to /3 [malignant, invasive]. "Stromal invasion" means the cancer is invasive. "Stroma" is the supporting connective tissue around and between ducts. It is outside the duct basement membrane. If the tumor cells extend into the stroma, the proper behavior designation for the tumor is invasive. |
2011 | |
|
|
20110153 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is macrocytic anemia reportable? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Macrocytic anemia is not reportable. Anemia refers to a condition of having a low count of red blood cells. The term "macrocytic" refers to the enlarged size of the red blood cells. Macrocytic anemia is usually caused by vitamin deficiencies, alcohol use, medications or thyroid disorders.
See Appendix F: Non-Reportable List for Hematopoietic Diseases.
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 | |
|
|
20110151 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is "common variable immunodeficiency" which is also known as acquired hypogammaglobulinemia reportable? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph. Common variable immunodeficiency (acquired hypogammaglobulinemia) is not a reportable condition. Common variable immunodeficiency represents a group of approximately 150 primary immunodeficiencies that have a common set of symptoms but different underlying causes, both benign and malignant. The case is not reportable unless this immunodeficiency diagnosis is accompanied by a diagnosis of a cancer or a reportable hematopoietic or lymphoid neoplasm. See Appendix F: Non-Reportable List for Hematopoietic Diseases. 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 | |
|
|
20110150 | Ambiguous Terminology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: As ambiguous terminology is not used to code histology for Heme & Lymphoid primaries, how is the histology coded when a patient has a clinical diagnosis of "consistent with a myelodysplastic syndrome"? See Discussion. | The physician states the "patient's clinical picture certainly is most consistent with MDS." Several FISH probes were performed on peripheral blood, specifically looking for the 5q minus syndrome as well as other molecular rearrangements to suggest or confirm MDS. These studies came back as normal. The initial bone marrow also came back negative. The physician then states, "The suspicion was that this represented a myelodysplastic syndrome despite the normal cytogenetics. Additional studies performed on the date of the clinic visit included the FISH for the 5q minus syndrome as well as CD59 to exclude PNH. Both of these were negative. Therefore, at this juncture, the patient has a macrocytic anemia not yet requiring transfusion support with a normal white count and an elevated platelet count and a hypercellular bone marrow. This is certainly consistent with a myelodysplastic syndrome."
Per coding guidelines, ambiguous terminology is not used to code histology, only for reportability. What is the histology code for this case? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology as Myelodysplastic syndrome, unclassifiable [9989/3].
Ambiguous terminology is used to accession cases (determine reportability). While ambiguous terminology is generally not used to code a specific histology, it can be used to code histology if it is the .
The statement that you do not use ambiguous terms to code histology is intended for those NOS histologies with an ambiguous term being used to describe the subtype. For example, if the physician states this is a myelodysplastic syndrome, NOS, refractory thrombocytopenia. The correct histology would be MDS, NOS [9989/3] and not refractory thrombocytopenia [9992/3].
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. |
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 |
|
|
20110148 | First course treatment/Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be accessioned and how is treatment coded when follicular lymphoma diagnosed in December 2009 is treated with CHOP and a subsequent December 2010 diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma is treated with chemotherapy and a bone marrow transplant? See Discussion. | A follicular lymphoma [9690/3] involving multiple lymph nodes was diagnosed on 12/2/2009. The patient had no bone marrow involvement and was treated with CHOP as first course treatment. In October 2010, the patient was put on maintenance Rituxan but disease progression was noted in November 2010. A biopsy of a mesenteric lymph node in December 2010 showed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3]. The patient subsequently had chemotherapy and an autologous bone marrow transplant.
According to the Multiple Primaries Calculator in the Heme DB, the DLBCL is a new primary but the physician calls the diagnosis of DLBCL a transformation from the follicular lymphoma diagnosed in December 2009. |
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: follicular lymphoma [9690/3] and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3] per Rule M10. Per Rule M10, abstract as multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm (follicular lymphoma) AND there is a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma) more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis.
Record the CHOP as the first course of treatment for the follicular lymphoma because this was the only treatment given for the chronic neoplasm (follicular lymphoma) prior to the transformation to the acute neoplasm (DLBCL). Record the chemotherapy and bone marrow transplant as first course treatment for the DLBCL.
As noted above, follicular lymphoma does transform to DLBCL. This "transformation" is actually a new disease. Follicular lymphoma is a disease in which the lymph nodes have a prominent follicular pattern; DLBCL is a disease with diffuse proliferation of large lymphoid cells. While it is true that follicular lymphoma will transform to DLBCL, this transformation indicates it becomes a different entity.
The DLBCL is coded as a second primary for several reasons: to determine the incidence of follicular lymphomas transforming to DLBCL; survival time can be calculated for the diagnosis of the more aggressive DLBCL; death will be attributed to the DLBCL (for mortality statistics) and not the follicular 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. |
2011 |
|
|
20110147 | Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded when no bone marrow examination is performed but the peripheral blood flow cytometry listed several differential diagnoses and the physician states the diagnosis is small lymphocytic lymphoma? See Discussion. | The peripheral blood flow cytometry results state, "findings consistent with a small mature B-cell neoplasm, differential - marginal zone lymphoma, lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma, and atypical CLL." The physician states the diagnosis is "SLL." No bone marrow examination or CT scan was done to assess whether the patient had lymphadenopathy.
Per Rule PH5, if the diagnosis is B-cell CLL/SLL and peripheral blood is involved, the histology is coded to B-CLL/SLL [9823/3]. Should the primary site and histology be coded to bone marrow [C421] and CLL/SLL [9823/3] per Rule PH5 despite the physician's diagnosis of SLL [9670/3]? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This is a single primary and the primary site and histology is coded as bone marrow [C421] and CLL/SLL [9823/3]. The code 9670/3 [malignant lymphoma, small B lymphocytes, NOS] used for SLL is now obsolete.
Per the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB indicates that SLL is, "usually associated with CLL and coded CLL/SLL 9823/3. Small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) is almost identical to CLL. A somewhat arbitrary distinction is drawn between them based on the relative degree of marrow and nodal involvement and the numbers of circulating cells."
Per the Definition section in the Heme DB it states that, "CLL by definition involves blood and bone marrow at time of diagnosis." Check the PRIMARY SITE and MODULE RULE sections that indicate the primary site is C421, Rule PH5. Per this rule, code the primary site bone marrow (C421) and code the histology B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) [9823/3] when the diagnosis is B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) AND peripheral blood is involved (the bone marrow may also be involved).
This may appear to contradict the physician's diagnosis, but the 2008 WHO no longer codes CLL and SLL as separate neoplasms, rather one neoplasm, CLL/SLL, which reflects the actual neoplastic process. Those patients with SLL usually manifest CLL during the neoplastic process and those patients with CLL usually manifest SLL during the neoplastic process. WHO recommends coding to CLL/SLL rather than coding two primaries when the other neoplasm manifests.
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 |
An official website of the United States government
