| 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 |
|
|
20120017 | Reportability: Is a low-grade neuroendocrine neoplasm with gastrin expression found in a periportal lymph node reportable if the clinical impression is compatible with a gastrinoma? See Discussion. |
SINQ 20110095 states that "low-grade neuroendocrine neoplasm/carcinoid tumor with expression of gastrin" is reportable. However, in this case "carcinoid tumor" is not mentioned. Is this case reportable if the expression "carcinoid tumor" is missing in the diagnosis of the pathology report? Also, does the fact that the gastrinoma was found in a lymph node affect reportability? |
This is a reportable case. Code the histology as malignant gastrinoma [8153/3]. Gastrinomas are usually malignant. This one is apparently present in a metastatic site (periportal lymph node) which confirms the malignancy. |
2012 |
|
|
20120084 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries/Histology: How many primaries are accessioned and how is the histology coded if a patient has a 1.2 cm hepatocellular carcinoma and a 7 cm hepatocellular carcinoma, solid, acinar and trabecular type? See Discussion. | FINAL Diagnosis: 2 separate lesions of the liver 1)1.2 cm hepatocellular carcinoma and 2) 7 cm hepatocellular carcinoma, solid, acinar, and trabecular type. | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession a single primary, hepatocellular carcinoma [8170/3].
The steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) and go to the Other Sites MP rules because liver does not have site specific rules developed.
Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. There is one tumor with HCC and another tumor with a specific type of HCC.
Hepatocellular carcinomas vary and often display different architectural patterns such as solid, acinar and trabecular. |
2012 |
|
|
20120038 | Reportability/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is Monoclonal B-lymphocytosis of uncertain significance (MLUS) reportable? If so, what is the correct histology code? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Appendix F, monoclonal B-lymphocytosis of uncertain significance (MLUS) is not reportable.
Some papers point out that a lymphocyte count less than five thousand is equivalent to monoclonal B-lymphocytosis of uncertain significance (MLUS) or monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL). A lymphocyte count of five to thirty thousand could be smoldering chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The diagnosis of MLUS is a benign process that does not meet the criteria for CLL.
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 | |
|
|
20120060 | Primary Site/Reportability: What is the primary site and reportability status of a "pancreatic endocrine neoplasm" that arises in the heterotopic pancreas of the splenic hilum that is stated to be a "well-differentiated endocrine tumor, uncertain behavior per the WHO classification"? See Discussion. | SINQ 20120035 states that well differentiated pancreatic endocrine neoplasms should be reported with histology code 8240/3. However, the pathology report provides the WHO Classification which states "uncertain behavior." Should this tumor still be reported as 8240/3?
If reportable, how is the primary site coded? The tumor arose in heterotopic pancreas (in the splenic hilum), which is pancreatic tissue found outside the usual anatomical location of the pancreas. Per the pathology report, the tumor did not invade the spleen. Should the primary site be coded to C48.1 [mesentery]? The patient is female and the coding schema for "Peritoneum for Females" would apply to the case. However, none of those CS extension codes seem to apply to this localized case.
|
This case is reportable. Code the primary site to C25.9 [pancreas, NOS] and the histology to 8240/3 [neuroendocrine tumor (NET), Grade 1].
Per the 2012 SEER Manual, code the site in which the primary tumor originated. This neoplasm arose in pancreatic tissue and will behave accordingly, even though this pancreatic tissue is not located in the usual place.
Pancreatic endocrine and neuroendocrine neoplasms are essentially the same thing. However, they are described in two different WHO classifications; the endocrine classification and the digestive system classification. The digestive system classification is more recent, and is preferred by our expert pathologist consultant. The term "neuroendocrine" is to be used now, rather than "endocrine." In the pancreas, "well differentiated endocrine tumor" is synonymous with "neuroendocrine tumor (NET) Grade 1" and is coded 8240/3. |
2012 |
|
|
20120011 | Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is there a timing rule used to recode histology should a more specific diagnosis of refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB) be confirmed after an initial diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)? How many primaries are abstracted if RAEB subsequently evolves toward an acute myeloid leukemia? See Discussion. |
Facility A: 4/8/2010 Bone Marrow biopsy: Features most compatible with MDS. (No treatment administered.) 7/2/2010 Peripherial Blood: Transforming Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS). COMMENT: Clonal abnormality compatible with MDS/acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in all metaphases examined. (Still no treatment administered.) Facility B: 10/6/2010 Patient now presents for evaluation and treatment. Patient started on Vidaza. 10/07/10 Bone Marrow biopsy: Refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB-2) COMMENT: Evolution towards AML with myelodysplasia related changes considered; cytogenetic analysis reveals abnormalities most compatible with MDS and/or AML. Based on the Heme Manual and DB, the 4/8/2010 diagnosis of MDS, NOS (9989/3) is the first primary. Should the 7/2/2010 diagnosis of transforming MDS to AML (9861/3) be a new, second primary? Based on the Abstractor Note for MDS in the Heme DB for MDS, "If the characteristics of a specific subtype of MDS develop later in the course of the disease, change the histology code to the more specific diagnosis." Based on this note, should the MDS histology code [9989/3] be changed to refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB-2) [9983/3] from the biopsy taken on 10/7/2010 (one day after treatment began) that revealed RAEB-2 with evolution towards AML? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph. There is no time limit set to update histology to a more specific disease process if a patient has an initial NOS histology identified. Unlike solid tumors, hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms may take a year or more to manifest the specific disease. This is simply a part of the "disease characteristics." Abstract a single primary per M2, a single histology represents a single primary. Code the histology to 9983/3 [MDS/RAEB-2.] The Heme DB guidelines were interpreted correctly. MDS/RAEB can transform to AML and would be two separate primaries there had also been a reportable diagnosis of AML. The 7/2/2010 peripheral blood showed MDS and a clonal abnormality that was "compatible with MDS/AML." The 10/7/2010 bone marrow biopsy showed only RAEB-2 with "evolution towards AML with myelodysplasia related changes." Ambiguous terminology is only used to help determine reportability; it not used to code a more specific histology. In this case, there was only ambiguous terminology used to describe the AML. It is important to understand the implication of incorrectly assigning histology codes for hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasm using ambiguous terminology. Using this case as an example, the patient was not treated until three months after the 7/2/2010 peripheral blood diagnosis of MDS compatible with MDS/AML. The medical literature indicates that AML, if left untreated, is usually fatal within 1-3 months. The treatment given 10/6/2010, 3 months after the "compatible with" diagnosis, was a drug used to treat MDS and not AML. The other issue with this case is that the bone marrow examination, which is more reliable than peripheral blood, showed only "evolution towards AML." This means that the bone marrow is exhibiting the changes seen in the final stages of MDS prior to progression to AML. Wait for a definitive diagnosis of AML and/or treatment for AML before abstracting the second 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. |
2012 |
|
|
20120082 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned if the patient has two tumors in the left breast, one that is ductal carcinoma with mucinous differentiation and the other is ductal carcinoma, NOS? See Discussion. |
The final diagnosis from the left mastectomy was multifocal invasive ductal carcinoma (mpT1cN0) with associated intermediate grade ductal carcinoma in situ located between the invasive foci. Larger 2:00 focus: moderately differentiated ductal carcinoma with mucinous differentiation (1.4 cm). Smaller 3:00 focus: moderately to poorly differentiated ductal carcinoma (1.2 cm). The histologies of the invasive foci should be coded 8523/3 and 8500/3 respectively. To determine the number of primaries, does rule M11 apply which indicates this should be a single primary even though ductal with mucinous differentiation is not in Tables 1 or 2? Or does rule M12 apply because there is a difference in the third digit of histology and thus means this should be reported as a multiple primary case? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession two primaries, ductal carcinoma with mucinous differentiation [8523/3] and ductal carcinoma, NOS [8500/3]. The steps used to arrive at this decision are: Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). Go to the Breast MP rules because site specific rules have been developed for this primary. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M4. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. These tumors have ICD-O-3 histology codes that are different that the third (xxx) digit and are, therefore, multiple primaries. Ductal carcinoma with mucinous differentiation is not a specific type of ductal carcinoma identified in either Table 1 or 2. (To locate Tables 1 and 2, go to Breast under the Terms & Definitions section of the manual.) It is ductal carcinoma mixed with another type of carcinoma (mucinous carcinoma in this case) see Table 3. Rule M11 does not apply. |
2012 |
|
|
20120048 | MP/H Rules/Primary site: Can you clarify how you interpreted the term "synchronous" to appropriately code the primary site to C68.9 [urinary tract] for SINQ 20110119 and did not use that code for SINQ 20100025 when both cases used MP/H Rule M8 to determine the number of primaries? See Discussion. | In SINQ 20100025 a patient was diagnosed with multiple urinary system tumors over a year apart. Rule M8 applies (single primary) and the primary site was left coded to the original primary site, C65.9 [renal pelvis]. In SINQ 20110119 a patient is diagnosed with multiple urinary system tumors within a month of each other, again rule M8 applies (single primary) and the primary site was coded to C68.9 [urinary system, NOS].
In both cases, rule M8 applies. However, the tumors were not diagnosed synchronously (e.g., one month apart in one case and greater than one year apart in the other). When the SINQ answer states, "same time" or "synchronous" does this mean during the same event? If not, what is the time range for "same time" or "synchronous"?
Please clarify when it is appropriate to code the primary site to C68.9 [urinary system, NOS] for Rule M8 and when it is not. |
For the purpose of applying the MP/H rules, the term "synchronous" means that the two diagnoses occurred at the same time or less than or equal to 60 days apart.
The case in SINQ 20100025 was not synchronous. The first lesion in the renal pelvis [C65.9] occurred in 1/08 and the subsequent tumors were diagnosed in 5/09, more than one year apart. In this case, you do not go back to change the primary site code on the original abstract.
The case in SINQ 20110119 was diagnosed synchronously, the first lesion in the bladder [C67.9] was diagnosed in 11/09 and the second lesion in the renal pelvis [C65.9] was diagnosed in 12/09, less than 60 days apart. Because the lesions were synchronous, the primary site is coded urinary system, NOS [C68.9]. |
2012 |
|
|
20120080 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Kidney, renal pelvis/Bladder: How many primaries are accessioned if the patient was diagnosed with transitional cell carcinoma in situ of the renal pelvis in October 2006, TCC in situ of the bladder in July 2008 and TCC in situ of the ureter in November 2009?. See Discussion. | Per MP/H rule M8, the TCC in situ of the bladder diagnosed in July 2008 is the same primary as the TCC in situ of the renal pelvis diagnosed in October 2006. Should the new TCC in situ of the ureter diagnosed in November 2009 be a new primary per rule M7 because the renal pelvis TCC in situ was diagnosed in 2006? Or does the 3 year time frame for rule M7 start from the date of the last recurrence (July 2008)? | Abstract two primaries for this scenario per Rule M7. The first primary is the renal pelvis in Oct. 2006; the second primary is the ureter in Nov. 2009. The bladder tumor in July 2008 is not a new primary per Rule M8.
Compare the diagnosis date of the current (most recent) tumor to the diagnosis date of the original tumor. This applies even if the patient had six occurrences in-between these dates; you still compare the current tumor to the diagnosis date of the original tumor and ignore recurrences in this process. See slide 6 of the Beyond the Basics presentation, http://www.seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/training_adv/SEER_MPH_Gen_Instruc_06152007.pdf. |
2012 |
|
|
20120016 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is "amyloidosis" reportable if the medical oncologist states that it is a malignancy? See Discussion. |
Amyloidosis is not reportable per the Commission on Cancer guidelines. However, the medical oncologist at this facility states that it is a malignancy. The oncologist presented a case at Cancer Conference and indicated the patient has Stage III disease. Should this case be accessioned? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph. Amyloidosis, NOS is not reportable. It is listed in Appendix F of the Heme Manual on the Non-Reportable List for Hematopoietic Diseases. Amyloidosis (AL) is term that refers to a group of conditions that include benign conditions (e.g., found in the pancreas of type II diabetes patients and in the brain lesions of Alzheimer patients) as well as in malignant diseases (e.g., AL found in multiple myeloma and ACal (calcitonin) found in medullary carcinoma of the thyroid). Amyliodosis, NOS is not a term that equates to a malignant diagnosis. Check the medical record to see if this disease process is designated as either AL or ACal. There should be a malignant diagnosis such as multiple myeloma or medullary carcinoma of the thyroid in such cases rather than simply a diagnosis of amyloidosis. The malignancy needs to be coded, not the symptoms of the disease process. 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 |
Home
