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: 04/15/2026 04:28 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20031036 Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: When both the path and clinical diagnoses simultaneously reflect reportable diagnoses but one is a worse form of the same disease process, which diagnosis do we code? See Description. Would this case be coded to RAEB or AML? Bone marrow diagnosis: Hypercellular marrow with profound trilinieage dyspoietic changes. Comment: the features are consistent with RAEB. Clinical diagnosis five days later states: Myelodysplastic syndrome, early acute myelocytic leukemia (likely AML).

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:When several diagnoses are made as part of the diagnostic process within two months, code the one with the worst prognosis.

Code the case example as acute myelocytic leukemia.

For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.

2003
20031035 Reportability/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: Does the presence of sideroblasts on a bone marrow biopsy confirm a diagnosis of refractory anemia with sideroblasts?

Final path diagnosis of bone marrow biopsy:

I. Hypercellular marrow for age with trilinear hyperplasia.

II. Decreased iron stores with decreased sideroblasts.

Comment: Although the overall picture is not diagnostic of a specific entity, it is most consistent with an early stage myelodysplastic syndrome which would best be considered refractory anemia at this point.

In this case the percentage of sideroblasts is not stated. Would the path diagnosis of "decreased sideroblasts" along with the path comment of "refractory anemia" indicate that this case should be coded to 9982/3 [Refractory anemia with sideroblasts]?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

For the hematologic diseases, do not accession the case unless there is a definite positive diagnosis. A positive diagnosis, such as "Refractory anemia" must be stated in order to code that diagnosis. Other words associated with the positive diagnosis, such as "sideroblasts" are NOT to be used alone to assume a diagnosis.

Decreased sideroblasts does not make a diagnosis of Refractory anemia with sideroblasts. The sideroblasts for 9982/3 [Refractory anemia with sideroblasts] are characteristic in rings, and are INCREASED to make the diagnosis.

Based on the information provided, this case is not reportable. The final path diagnosis is not a reportable disease. The comment further states that the overall picture is not diagnostic of a specific entity. Therefore, it should not be reported at this point.

For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.

2003
20031034

Histology (Pre-2007)--Kidney, renal pelvis: What codes are used to represent the histologies of 1) "renal papillary (chromophil) carcinoma" and 2) "chromophil renal cell carcinoma?"

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code "chromophil" to 8260 [papillary renal cell]. According to our pathologist consultant, in the case of chromophil, most authors regard this as more or less synonymous with papillary renal cell [8260]. "More or less" because papillary is an old term descriptive of the microscopic structure, while chromophil is newer and based on the cytology; because most of the latter are papillary the current usage assumes them to be equivalent.

1) The diagnosis "renal papillary (chromophil) carcinoma" tells us that the pathologist who wrote it was seeing both pattern and cytologic features, and is regarding papillary equivalent to chromophil; thus, code to 8260.

2) Code "chromophil renal cell carcinoma" to 8260.

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2003
20031033 Grade, Differentiation--Hematopoietic: Is this field coded to 6 [B-cell] from a flow cytometry that specifies the percentage of B-cells that exist within the percentage of lymphoid cells in the bone marrow biopsy? See Description. Bone marrow biopsy, Final path diagnosis: consistent with small lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Comment: flow cytometry analysis was performed on bone marrow aspirate. The gated population of lymphoid cells comprises approximately 19% of total nucleated cells. Of these, 53% are B-cells which express CD19, CD22. These findings are consistent with the above diagnosis.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Yes, assign code 6, B-cell. The flow cytometry analysis confirms B-cell.

For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.

 2003
20031032 Diagnostic Confirmation--Hematopoietic, NOS: How should diagnostic confirmation of Hematopoietic diseases be coded in the absence of positive bone marrow? See Description.

Case 1. Patient admitted 9-12-02 with diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia. Per the H&P, patient obviously has had this since January 2001. Per the clinical history: patient with elevated platelets. Path diagnosis of bone marrow biopsy done 9-20-02 showed mildly increased megakaryocytes. 10-31-02 clinical sign-out diagnosis was: essential thrombocythemia.

Case 2. Patient admitted for evaluation of erythrocytosis. Assessment: Increased hematocrit only. It is most likely that patient has polycythemia vera. I think it is reasonable to initiate phlebotomy treatment.

Code 1, Positive histology, includes diagnostic hematologic findings and peripheral blood smears when these are the basis for diagnosis.

When the clinician makes a specific diagnosis and the blood work is not diagnostic, code diagnostic confirmation as 8 [Clinical diagnosis only]. The clinician is putting together all evidence, including the blood work and using his/her professional experience to diagnose the case.

Case 1. The diagnosis is not based on microscopic findings. Assign code 8 [Clinical diagnosis only]. Megakaryocytes are the immature form of thrombocytes, but mildly increased megakaryocytes are not diagnostic of essential thrombocythemia.

Case 2. The diagnosis is not based on microscopic findings. Assign code 8 [Clinical diagnosis only].

 2003
20031031

Reportability/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: What histology code is used for a patient diagnosed with "myelodysplasia" prior to 2001, if a bone marrow biopsy in 2002 is consistent with myelodysplastic syndrome with refractory anemia with bilineage dysplasia with excess blasts and the final impression is "myelodysplastic syndrome slowly evolving toward acute leukemia?"

Patient was admitted in July 15, 2002. Per the H&P, patient was diagnosed 5 years ago with myelodysplasia. Patient had bone marrow biopsy about 5 years ago and then again on 6-10-02. Patient has become transfusion dependent since mid-March. Bone marrow on 6-10-02 was consistent with myelodysplastic syndrome with refractory anemia with bilineage dysplasia with excessive blasts. Impression: Myelodysplastic syndrome slowly evolving toward acute leukemia. Plan: start chemo. 7-16-02 bone marrow biopsy showed acute myeloid leukemia.

Can we assume that the myelodysplasia diagnosed 5 years ago was refractory anemia and therefore, patient's first reportable diagnosis would be the AML? Or is the 6-10-02 bone marrow biopsy showing refractory anemia to be the first reportable diagnosis because the term "myelodysplasia" is non-specific?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

Based on the information provided, the diagnosis date is June 2002. The diagnosis is 9895/3, acute myeloid leukemia with multilineage dysplasia (AML with prior myelodysplastic syndrome). According to the SEER table of hematopoietic diseases, refractory anemia and myelodysplastic syndrome followed by AML is one primary.

Prior to 2001, a diagnosis of myelodysplasia was not reportable.

For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.

 2003
20031030 Primary Site--Head & Neck: What is the primary site for a tumor location described as being in the "gingiva between teeth #s 18 and 19?

Code the primary site as C03.1, lower gum.

According to the system used by the American Dental Association, tooth #18 and tooth #19 are lower. Teeth #1-16 are upper. Teeth #17-32 are lower.

 2003
20031029 Histology (Pre-2007)/Grading--Head & Neck: Can terms that commonly modify histologic types or grades be used if they are only expressed in the microscopic portion of the pathology report? See Description. Final path diagnosis on a biopsy of the base of tongue is squamous carcinoma. The micro portion of the path report states the following: Multiple fragments of abnormal epithelium with a complex growth pattern. Many of the cells are small and poorly differentiated, interspersed with areas of well-differentiated keratinized epithelium. This is consistent with squamous cell carcinoma in situ with areas of invasive carcinoma. Do we code histology to 8070/3 or 8071/3?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Yes, code using terms from the microscopic description if there is a definitive statement of a more specific histologic type.

Code the case example as 8070/33 [Squamous cell carcinoma, NOS, poorly differentiated]. The microscopic description adds grade information, but does not make a definitive statement of a more specific histologic type. "Keratinized epithelium" is not the same as keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (8071/3). The mention of "areas of well-differentiated keratinized epithelium" refers to "normal" tissue within the specimen, in contrast to a type of neoplastic tissue.

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2003
20031028

EOD-Lymph Nodes--Head & Neck: If a pre-treatment description of a chain of lymph nodes doesn't meet the criteria for involvement but the post-treatment description of the same chain of lymph nodes does, should those nodes be counted as involved in coding EOD? See Description.

(Primary site = larynx)

9/12/02 CT neck showed right cervical chain adenopathy. After chemotherapy, an 11/18/02 CT soft tissue of neck showed decrease in size by 50% of what was probably necrotic metastatic node to right mandibular angle.

The term "lymphadenopathy" should be ignored when determining involvement of lymph nodes per SEER. In this case, a probable necrotic metastatic node is mentioned in a subsequent CT taken after treatment.

Should lymph node involvement be coded to 9 based on the 9/12/02 CT or coded to 4 because of the mention of a decrease in size of what was probably a metatastic node on the 11/18/03 CT?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, code EOD using the best information available. In this example, the post-treatment description of lymph nodes. A post-treatment description of lymph nodes can be used to code lymph node involvement in the absence of disease progression. Pre-operative treatment does not affect lymph node involvement.

Case example: Code lymph nodes as involved (codes 1-4 depending on size and number) based on the later CT report.

 2003
20031026 EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: If there is no mention of vocal cord mobility, do we code indicating normal vocal cord mobility or do we code EOD-Extension to a "localized, NOS?" See discussion. How do we code EOD-extension for the following tumor of the supraglottic larynx? Limited stage small cell cancer of epiglottis per discharge signout. Physical exam revealed swelling of anterior aspect of epiglottis and narrowing of epiglottis. Neck without palpable masses. Laryngoscopy with biopsy and esophagoscopy showed extensive tumor involving entire laryngeal surface of epiglottis, extending onto aryepiglottic fold, onto false vocal cords and onto left true vocal cord. Ventricle on left side was obliterated with tumor. Right true vocal cord free of tumor. There is no information regarding vocal cord mobility. Biopsy of the left true vocal cord was negative. Should EOD-extension be coded to 20 [Tumor involves more than one subsite of supraglottis without fixation or NOS] or 50 [Localized NOS]? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, if vocal cord mobility is not mentioned, code as normal mobility. Code EOD-extension for the example case as 20 [Tumor involves more than one subsite of supraglottis without fixation or NOS]. 2003