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: 12/30/2025 20:19 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20120033

Multiple Primaries--Hematopoietic: How many primaries are abstracted when a patient is diagnosed with essential thrombocythemia in 2007 and a bone marrow biopsy performed on 12/4/2009 shows primary myelofibrosis? See Discussion.

The patient was diagnosed with essential thrombocythemia in 2007 and was treated with Hydrea. The 2009 bone marrow biopsy showed primary myelofibrosis which the physician states is a transition from the essential thrombocythemia. The Heme DB calls this two primaries.

This is a single primary, essential thrombocythemia [9962/3] diagnosed in 2007. The 2010 Heme DB and Manual should not have been used to determine the number of primaries in this case. The Heme DB applies only to cases diagnosed 2010 and later.

In order to determine the number of primaries, use the rules in place at the time of the subsequent 2009 diagnosis of primary myelofibrosis. Per the Single Versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table, a diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia [9962/3] followed by a diagnosis of primary myelofibrosis [9961/3] is a single primary.

 2012
20120091 Reportability/Behavior--Kidney: Is epithelioid angiomyolipoma (AML) of the kidney a reportable malignancy? See Discussion. The addendum final diagnosis on a pathology report for a kidney core needle biopsy included the results of additional stains performed on the tissue. It indicated the morphology was most consistent with epithelioid angiomyolipoma. Further comments in the body of the report indicate these tumors are now considered malignant neoplasms with the capacity to be locally aggressive and they can potentially metastasize. There is no mention of a metastasis in this particular case.

Epithelioid angiomyolipoma (AML) [8860/0] of the kidney is not reportable unless stated to be malignant.

If the pathologist confirms this is a malignancy, apply ICD-O-3 Rule F (Matrix principle) and assign the behavior code /3. If confirmation is received, accession the case using the morphology code 8860/3 [malignant angiomyolipoma].

2012
20120036 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the primary site be coded to C779 or C809 when a patient is diagnosed at another facility with mantle cell lymphoma and the staging bone marrow biopsy performed at this facility is negative? There is no available information concerning where the lymphoma originated.

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

Per PH Rule22, code the primary site to C779 [lymph nodes, NOS].

Rule PH22 is a default rule for lymphomas that is used when there is no other information regarding the primary site and the Heme DB does not indicate a primary site under its Primary Site(s) section. Rule PH27, code the primary site to unknown [C809], does not apply. Only use C809 [unknown] as the primary site when there is no evidence of lymphoma in lymph nodes AND the physician documents that the lymphoma originates in an organ(s).

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
20120025 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are abstracted if a patient was diagnosed with metastatic malignant melanoma to the brain in 2003 and subsequently was diagnosed with meningeal melanomatosis? See Discussion. Meningeal melanomatosis has a separate ICD-O-3 code, but is also a very rare form of melanoma.

This is a single primary coded to the site of the original melanoma. The brain and meninges are both metastatic sites. The MP/H Rules do not apply to metastases.

This case was sent to the melanoma physician specialists. The physician stated that, in this case, the meningeal involvement is secondary to the brain involvement (metastatic spread). Whenever brain metastases are diagnosed, the meningeal spread is metastatic.

2012
20120092 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries/Recurrence -- Lung: How many primaries are accessioned if a diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma of the lung is followed three years later by a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the lung if the pathologist reviews all the slides and states the subsequent diagnosis is a recurrence? See Discussion.

7/12/2007 Left upper lobe lung lobectomy: Squamous cell carcinoma.

3/09/2010 Left lung completion pneumonectomy: Adenocarcinoma, predominantly acinar. The diagnosis comment on the pathology report indicates the previous lobectomy specimen from 2007 was reviewed and "there are areas that appear histologically similar to the current neoplasm. Thus, the findings are most compatible with recurrence."

Despite the difference in histology, is this a single primary per the MP/H Coding Rules, General Information instruction 7 because the pathologist did refer to the 3/9/2010 diagnosis as a "recurrence" of the 7/12/2007 diagnosis after reviewing the slides?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession a single primary, left upper lobe squamous cell carcinoma diagnosed 7/27/2007.

The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Go to the General Information notes for Determining Multiple Primaries for Solid Malignant Tumors in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual.

General Information Rule 7 states "Use the multiple primary rules as written unless a pathologist compares the present tumor to the "original" tumor and states that this tumor is a recurrence of cancer from the previous primary."

Accession a single primary. Do not apply the Multiple Primary rules because the pathologist compared the 2007 and 2010 slides and determined this was a recurrence and not a new primary.

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
20120050 Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned and what histology codes apply if a patient has a 1998 diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia and a recent clinical diagnosis of secondary myelofibrosis? See Discussion. The patient has a history of essential thrombocythemia (ET) since 1998. This has been treated daily with aspirin. A recent bone marrow biopsy was consistent with myeloproliferative disorder with excess blasts, marked extensive reticulin marrow fibrosis with osteosclerosis, excess blasts (11%) in the marrow aspirate and peripheral blood. JAK2 mutation was present in a small minority of cells. The physician stated patient was, "considered to have secondary myelofibrosis and was started on Jakafi."

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

Per Appendix F, a secondary myelofibrosis is not a reportable case.

Secondary myelofibrosis is not listed as a synonym for primary myelofibrosis in the Heme DB. The term "secondary myelofibrosis" means that the myelofibrosis was caused by, in this case, the essential thrombocythemia.

The diagnosis "consistent with myeloproliferative disorder" is also not a new reportable diagnosis. "Myeloproliferative disorder" refers to a group of diseases (an NOS category) that includes essential thrombocythemia, which was originally diagnosed in 1998, prior to reportability for this disease type.

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
20120094

Reportability: Given that per the 2012 SEER Manual and SINQ 20120081 VIN II-III is no longer reportable, does this change exclusively apply to VIN II-III or does it also apply to AIN II-III, VAIN II-III, etc.? See Discussion.

VIN II-III was a reportable condition in the past. There was a SINQ note to that effect which is now gone from the system. Would it be better to reactivate that note and put a date reference in it so that there is documentation available to confirm this disease (and other IN II-III diseases) was previously reportable? If the note is not reactivated, could there be some indication in SINQ 20120081 of the prior reportability of this disease process?

For cases diagnosed 2021 or later, VIN II-III is reportable. Similarly, AIN II-III, VAIN II-III, etc. are reportable. For cases diagnosed 2021 or later, the primary resource for reportability is ICD-O-3.2. Squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II is listed in ICD-O-3.2 as 8077/2 making it reportable. This applies to the various sites of intraepithelial neoplasia grade II including anus, vulva, and vagina.

 2012
20120012 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology coded if the pathology report shows diffuse large B-cell lymphoma arising in a small cell lymphoma - Richter's transformation, also compatible with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL)?

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

Code the histology to 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)].

For CLL (and CLL/SLL), Richter's transformation represents when CLL changes into DLBCL. In this case, there was a biopsy that demonstrated a diagnosis of the chronic disease (CLL/SLL) transforming (Richter's transformation) into an acute disease DLBCL.

Per Rule M8, one is instructed to abstract the acute neoplasm as a single primary when both a chronic (CLL/SLL) and an acute neoplasm (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)) are diagnosed simultaneously there is documentation of only one positive bone marrow biopsy, lymph node biopsy or tissue biopsy.

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