Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20100082 | Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should a case be accessioned as MDS, NOS when a consult uses ambiguous terminology (e.g., probable MDS) to describe the disease process and the bone marrow does not confirm the consult diagnosis? See Discussion. | A patient is stated to have "probable MDS" by a hematology oncologist consult during an admission. A bone marrow biopsy was also performed during this admission, the final diagnosis on the pathology report is, "anemia and thrombocytopenia." The patient was not seen again by a hematology oncologist; however the patient's cardiology states, "BM biopsy was not clear whether this is MDS or another etiology." | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This is not reportable. In effect, the original diagnosis was a rule/out MDS diagnosis. The bone marrow biopsy performed as part of the initial workup, proved that rule/out diagnosis was not valid. The subsequent statement confirms the diagnosis is not clear.
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. |
2010 |
|
|
20100039 | Casefinding--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is the 2010 casefinding code of 289.6 (Familial Polycythemia) addressed anywhere in the Hematopoietic Database? See Discussion. |
When you enter "familial polycythemia" into the Heme DM, polycythemia vera (PV) appears; however, the term "familial polycythemia" is not listed as one of the synonyms for PV. |
Familial polycythemia by itself is not reportable. This is a benign condition which occurs within families. Familial polycythemia can progress to polycythemia vera (9950/3), which would then be reportable. The code, 289.6, which is the ICD-9-CM code for Familial polycythemia is not included on the reportable list for casefinding. There is only one ICD-9-CM code for Polycythemia vera, 238.4. "Familial polycythemia" is listed in Appendix F: Non-Reportable List for Hematopoietic Diseases. |
2010 |
|
|
20100062 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How is histology coded when there is a lung biopsy compatible with non-small cell carcinoma and regional lymph node biopsies compatible with adenocarcinoma? See Discussion. | Which histology has priority when the pathology specimens reveal different histologies in the primary site and the regional lymph node? Do we assume the lung biopsy is the most representative tumor specimen because it is from the primary site and code to 8046 [non-small cell carcinoma] or should we use rule H5 and code to 8140 [adenocarcinoma, NOS] because adenocarcinoma is a more specific histology than non-small cell carcinoma? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code histology based on a pathology report from the primary site whenever possible. Code histology to 8046/3 [non-small cell carcinoma] for the case example provided. | 2010 |
|
|
20100010 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Ovary: How many primaries are to be abstracted when a patient is diagnosed with serous cystadenocarcinoma [8441] of the right ovary and clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310] of the left ovary? See Discussion. |
Patient had bilateral ovarian tumors. The right ovary had serous cystadenocarcinoma and left ovary had clear cell adenocarcinoma. The pathology COMMENT section stated, "Based on the histologic differences of the tumors within each ovary, feel these represent two distinct separate primaries. Lymph node metastases are clearly serous ca." The physician staged the right ovary as T2a N1 M0 and left ovary as T1c N0 M0. Do we accession one primary per rule M7 [Bilateral epithelial tumors (8000-8799) of the ovary within 60 days are a single primary]? What is intention of Rule M7? If the histology in each ovary is different but within the range (8000-8799), is that supposed to be accessioned as one primary? Or is the intention of Rule M7 that tumors in both ovaries must have the SAME histology within that histology range to be a single primary? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, apply rule M8 and abstract this case as multiple primaries. Rule M7 does not apply when each ovary has a distinctly different histology, even when both histologies are with the specified code range. This clarification will be added to the next version of the rules. |
2010 |
|
|
20100072 | Histology/Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a diagnosis of follicular lymphoma in situ of the gallbladder reportable for 2010? See Discussion. | Coding the histology to 9690 [Follicular lymphoma] with a behavior of 2 [in situ] causes many edits including SEER and CS edits to fail. According to the chief of pathology, this is a recently identified pathologic entity. | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Currently, lymphoma in situ is not reportable. It is true that this is a recently identified pathologic entity. Our experts say that there is still some controversy to be ironed out regarding the criteria for identifying an in situ lymphoma. Their recommendation was to wait until clear guidelines had been established for the pathologists before we start collection of in situ lymphomas. We anticipate collecting these entities in the future.
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. |
2010 |
|
|
20100070 | Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is this field coded for a follicular lymphoma, grade 2 of 3, predominantly nodular? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code histology to 9691/3 [Follicular lymphoma, grade 2]. Nodular lymphoma is an obsolete term once used to describe follicular lymphoma. (See Appendix A, Table A3)
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. |
2010 | |
|
|
20100034 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Esophagus: Should two separate nodules of adenocarcinoma with one at the GE junction [C160] and one arising in Barretts esophagus of the distal esophagus [C155] be accessioned as a single primary because these sites are now grouped together in the same stage grouping per the AJCC 7th Edition? See Discussion. | Per notes included in CSv2, the cardia/EGJ, and the proximal 5cm of the fundus and body of the stomach [C16.0-C16.2] have been moved from the Stomach chapter and added to the Esophagus chapter effective with AJCC TNM 7th Edition. A new schema, EG Junction, was created in CSv2 to accommodate this change. Tumors arising at the EGJ, or arising in the stomach within 5 cm of the EGJ and crossing the EGJ are staged using the schema for EG Junction. MP/H Rule M11 states that tumors with ICD-O-3 topography codes that are different at the second (Cxxx) and/or third characters (Cxxx) are multiple primaries.
In light of the fact that tumors of the GE junction are now included with tumors of the esophagus in AJCC 7th Edition, will the MP/H rules also be adjusted to reflect that change? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use the multiple primary rules to determine the number of primaries. Use staging resources for staging. Abstract two primaries for the case example using Rule M11. | 2010 |
|
|
20100090 | MP/H Rules/Histology: How is histology coded for a diagnosis of "poorly differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma intermixed with osteoid sarcomatous component, consistent with malignant mixed mullerian tumor with heterologous (osteosarcoma) elements"? Is malignant mixed mullerian tumor synonymous with carcinosarcoma? See Discussion. | Given that there is no mixed code for these histologies, can the numerically higher code be used per H17 (malignant mixed mullerian tumor [8950/3]) using the logic of the MP/H rule for other sites? If so, should this histology be coded as 8980/3 [carcinosarcoma] rather than 8950/3 [malignant mixed mullerian tumor]? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code histology to 8980/3 [carcinosarcoma]. Recent literature states that carcinosarcoma is synonymous with mixed mullerian tumor. Mixed mullerian tumor is an obsolete term and should not be used. | 2010 |
|
|
20100110 | Reportability--Esophagus/Stomach: Are the terms "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" synonymous with in situ for tumors in the gastrointestinal tract? See Discussion. |
SINQ 20000245 states that high grade or severe dysplasia in not synonymous with in situ disease. However, per page 109 in the 7th edition of AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, high grade dysplasia is the only term listed under Tis. A note on that page explains that "high-grade dysplasia includes all noninvasive neoplastic epithelia that was formerly called carcinoma in situ, a diagnosis that is no longer used for columnar mucosae anywhere in the gastrointestinal tract."
There has been considerable pressure from registrars at larger reporting facilities to re-address this issue. The pathologists at these facilities state that they are correctly documenting the presence of in situ disease when they use the term high grade dysplasia for gastrointestinal tract tumors. In their opinion, it is not necessary to add the term in situ in parentheses following the use of the term high grade dysplasia to clarify the behavior of these lesions in their pathology reports. If the term "carcinoma in situ" is no longer being used by many pathologists for sites in the gastrointestinal tract, won't this lead to underreporting of in situ disease for these sites unless the reportability guidelines are changed? |
For cancer reporting purposes, the terms "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" are not synonymous with in situ for tumors in the gastrointestinal tract. These cases are only reportable when the pathologist documents carcinoma in situ or intraepithelial neoplasia grade III, or when the registry includes in their policies and procedures the pathologist's statement that he/she uses HGD to mean the same as CIS.
Reportability laws are customarily based on ICD-O. Because "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" are not designated as in situ in the ICD-O, there is no legal authority to report these cases in most states.
NAACCR is reviewing this issue. See #5 on page 11 of the December 1, 2013 NAACCR Implementation document, http://www.naaccr.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=u7d3sB71t5w%3d&tabid=126&mid=466 |
2010 |
|
|
20100020 | Histology/Behavior--Brain and CNS: How are these fields coded for a "cystic glioma"? | Code the histology 9380/3 [Malignant glioma; Glioma, NOS]. There is no specific code for cystic glioma. | 2010 |
An official website of the United States government
