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: 01/01/2026 10:30 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20110060 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: In the absence of any additional information regarding the disease process, is a diagnosis of "polycythemia" reportable if a patient is treated with phlebotomy?

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

No. Polycythemia, NOS is not reportable.

Polycythemia (also known as polycythaemia or erythrocytosis) is a disease state in which the proportion of blood volume that is occupied by red blood cells increases. Blood volume proportions can be measured as hematocrit level. It can be due to an increase in the mass of red blood cells, "absolute polycythemia"; or to a decrease in the volume of plasma, "relative polycythemia".

The phlebotomy is a treatment for the excessive blood volume; therefore, a diagnosis of "polycythemia" without one of the modifying terms listed in the Heme DB under Alternative Names is not reportable.

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
20110015 Primary site/Histology: Do the 4/1/09 changes in the ICD-O-3 Site/Type Validation table regarding the coding of primary site for intestinal type adenocarcinoma mean that the former valid site/histology combinations are now impossible and require review from a given diagnosis date forward? See Discussion.

Per the SEER Errata for ICD-O-3 Site/Type Validation List, April 1, 2009, adenocarcinoma, intestinal type, was removed as a valid site/histology combination for the following primary sites: C150-C155, C158-C159, C170-C173, C178-C179, C180-C189, C199, C209, C210-C212, C218.

  • Does this mean that these combinations cannot be used? If so, then why is an override allowed for these site/type combinations? Shouldn't these site/type combinations be added to the impossible site/type combinations table?

  • SINQ 20081085 states that "8144/3 will be removed from the valid site/histology list for large intestine, small intestine, and rectum." It appears from the Site/Type Validation table that a decision was made to also remove esophagus sites as a valid combination with histology code of 8144. Please explain the rationale.

  • Cases that were miscoded to 8144/3 will need to be identified for correction. What date of diagnosis should be the reference point used in making the necessary corrections related to this change? Do we only need to review cases diagnosed 1/1/2009 forward or should all cases be corrected regardless of date of diagnosis?

    • The site/type edit identifies unlikely combinations of primary site and histologic type.

  • Intestinal type adenocarcinoma occurs in the stomach. It would be rare in another primary site, but not impossible.

  • It was decided that all digestive organ sites, except stomach, would be removed from the list. That is why esophagus is not listed as a valid site.

  • The site/type edit is for all years. Cases for all years have to be reviewed for combinations of site and type that are no longer on the list. If it is documented in the medical record that the primary site and histology combination are valid, set the over-ride flag so that the case will not come up for review again.

    		• 2011
    		20110023 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are reported in a patient with a November 2009 diagnosis of refractory anemia and a 10/25/2010 biopsy diagnosis of refractory anemia with excess blasts type 2 with ringed sideroblasts that the clinician indicates actually demonstrates progression to AML? See Discussion.

    Refractory anemia, NOS diagnosed in November 2009. The diagnosis on a bone marrow biopsy performed on 10/25/10 is myelodysplastic syndrome - refractory anemia with excess blasts type 2 with ringed sideroblasts. Per the medical oncologist, in the 12/16/10 clinic note it states, "Pt underwent bone marrow biopsy on 10/25/10 and ultimately this marrow demonstrates progression to AML.

    When applying the Hematopoietic Rules, the refractory anemia, NOS and the myelodysplastic syndrome - refractory anemia with excess blasts type 2 with ringed sideroblasts is the same primary. However, the refractory anemia NOS and the AML are multiple primaries.

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

    First, note that myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) is a term that includes a number of diseases. Refractory anemia, NOS and refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts are types of MDS. These two diseases are an NOS and a more specific disease, which is accessioned as one primary per Rule M7.

    Next, assess the change from refractory anemia to AML. In checking the Heme DB, AML is listed under transformations for refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts. This patient has a chronic disease (refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts) and an acute disease (AML). Per Rule M10, abstract as multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed in a chronic (less aggressive) phase AND second diagnosis of a blast or acute phase more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis.

    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
    		20110103 MP/H Rules/Histology/Ambiguous terminology: Can synonyms of listed terms, such as "variety" for the list termed "type," be used to code a more specific histology? See Discussion. The list of terms denoting a more specific histology does not include "variety." During MP/H training sessions there was an emphasis placed on only using terms listed to code a more specific histology. However, the results of an audit indicated that because "variety" is a synonym for "type" it could be used to code a more specific histology. Are synonyms of listed terms to be used to code histology? No. Synonyms of listed words used in the MP/H rules (e.g., "variety" for the listed term "type") cannot be used to designate a more specific histology. 2011
    		20110013

    MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: Which MP/H rule applies in coding the histology described as a "malignant mixed germ cell tumor with the following features: Histologic type: embryonal carcinoma (97%) and yolk sac tumor (3%)"? See Discussion.

    Per MP/H rule H16, code the appropriate combination/mixed code (Table 2) when there are multiple specific histologies or when there is a non-specific histology with multiple specific histologies. The combination embryonal carcinoma and yolk sac tumor is not listed in Table 2, even though the pathology report indicates this is a mixed germ cell tumor.

    Should rule H17 be applied and the numerically higher histology code be used?

    As of 2016: Code histology to 9085/3 [mixed germ cell tumor]. Combine 9065 and 9085 for analysis purposes.                            

    		2011
    		20110132 Reportability/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a diagnosis of "small B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoproliferative disorder" reportable? If so, how is the histology to be coded? See Discussion. The final diagnosis of a bone marrow biopsy dated 10/99/2010 was "small B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoproliferative disorder." The differential diagnosis includes atypical small lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukemia and marginal zone lymphoma. Mantle cell lymphoma is very unlikely based on BCL1 negativity. Lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma is also excluded due to the absence of a plasma cell component (CD138 negative).

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

    Yes. The term "small B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoproliferative disorder" is reportable. Code the histology to 9591/3 [non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS] per Rule PH28. When there is a diagnosis of lymphoproliferative disorder and any lymphoma, code the lymphoma histology.

    The information in the discussion is reflective of the difficulty in diagnosing hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. The differential diagnosis indicates that a number of possible specific lymphoma/leukemia diagnoses that have been ruled out, which explains why the final diagnosis is non-Hodgkin, NOS.

    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
    		20110068 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Bladder: Which multiple primary rule is used to determine the number of primaries to accession when a patient has a papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder diagnosed in 2009 followed by a high grade invasive urothelial carcinoma with neuroendocrine features per immunohistochemistry diagnosed in 2010? See Discussion.

    A patient has papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder in March of 2009. In June of 2010 the patient has another TURBT that demonstrates a flat in situ and invasive high grade urothelial carcinoma. The path addendum indicates, "Genzyme IHC show results consistent with high grade invasive urothelial carcinoma with neuroendocrine features." Two months later a liver biopsy shows poorly differentiated malignant tumor. The path addendum indicates, "Genzyme IHC results show metastatic poorly differentiated carcinoma with neuroendocrine features, favor bladder primary."

    Is the latter a second bladder primary with histology code 8246/3 [neuroendocrine carcinoma]?

    NOTE: Neuroendocrine is not listed as an urothelial tumor in Table 1 of MP/H Rules.

    Use the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual for cases diagnosed 2007 or later to determine the number of primaries. This is a single primary. The 2010 diagnosis is urothelial carcinoma. The presence of "neuroendocrine features" does not change the histologic category.

    The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

    Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. Once in the manual, locate the Urinary MP rules under one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.

    Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module start at rule M3.

    . Bladder tumors with any combination of transitional cell carcinoma and papillary transitional carcinoma are a single primary.

    		2011
    		20110143

    Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many and what primary site(s) are to be accessioned when biopsies of clavicular and neck skin lesions are both consistent with mycosis fungoides? See Discussion.

    Per the Heme DB and Manual, this is a single primary; however, per the MP/H Rules, this would be multiple primaries. Which rules apply to this case?

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

    When there is a question of whether the SEER MP/H Rules or Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Rules apply, check the histology and refer to the Case Reportability Instructions in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Manual. All ICD-O-3 morphology codes in the range 9590 - 9992 are included in the Hematopoietic Rules. Mycosis Fungoides [9700/3] is included in this range. Therefore, the SEER MP/H Rules do not apply to mycosis fungoides.

    This case should be accessioned as a single primary: mycosis fungoides [9700/3] of the skin, NOS [C449]. Per Rule M2 abstract a single primary when there is a single histology.

    Note that in the Primary Site(s) section of the Heme DB, it states the primary site must always be coded to skin (C440 - C449) for mycosis fungoides. Because the primary site is stated in this section of the Heme DB, it is not necessary to use the Primary Site Rules to determine the primary site. Code the primary site to C449 [skin, NOS] because the patient has multiple sites of skin involvement and there is no documentation indicating which subsite of skin was the origin of the mycosis fungoides.

    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
    		20110012 Reportability--Sarcoma: Is "atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma" reportable? See Discussion.

    The final diagnosis for a soft tissue excision is, "atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma". The Comment section states, "Atypical lipomatous tumor/well differentiated liposarcoma has a significant risk for local recurrence, but no metastatic potential."

    Per the 2010 SEER Manual, page 3, example 4: The pathologist makes the final decision about the behavior for a particular case. In this case, the pathologist uses both a reportable and a non-reportable term in the final diagnosis and in the comment section of the pathology report. Does the pathologist's comment impact the behavior and reportability of this tumor?

    		 For cases diagnosed 1/1/2014 and later: Atypical lipomatous tumor (8850/1) is not reportable. If the pathologist uses the term "well-differentiated liposarcoma" (8851/3) report the case. Use of this terminology indicates a less favorable prognosis. 2011
    		20110032 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What primary site is coded for Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) [9751/3] when it is limited to the skin?

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

    Per Rule PH30, use the Heme DB to determine the primary site and histology when PH1-29 do not apply, In this case, code the primary site to C449 [Skin]. According to the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB, the solitary form of Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) [9751/3] occurs less commonly than the multisystem form of the disease; but can appear in nodes, skin and lung. This is a solitary form of LCH. Code the primary site to skin [C449].

    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