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: 03/02/2026 21:06 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20110149

Ambiguous Terminology/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are the histology and diagnostic confirmation to be coded when the pathology report's final diagnosis is "plasma cell dyscrasia consistent with plasma cell myeloma" and the physician subsequently states this diagnosis was plasma cell myeloma? See Discussion.

Pathologists often use the diagnosis "plasma cell dyscrasia" followed by an ambiguous term such as "consistent with" or "favors" with a more specific histology such as "plasma cell myeloma." Per initial training for Hematopoietic, ambiguous terminology is not used to code the histology for Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms. Should the histology be coded as plasma cell dyscrasia (which is not found in the Heme DB or Manual) because the pathology report uses ambiguous terminology to describe the plasma cell myeloma?

If the physician subsequently states the diagnosis is "plasma cell myeloma" in a note following the pathology, should the histology be coded as plasma cell myeloma based on that diagnosis as there was no ambiguous terminology used?

How is the diagnostic confirmation coded for this case? Should this be a positive histology diagnosis (diagnostic confirmation code 1) if the pathology diagnosis uses ambiguous terminology only?

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

The histology is coded as Plasma cell myeloma [9732/3]. The diagnostic confirmation is coded to 1 [positive histology].

Under the Definitive Diagnostic Methods section in the Heme DB it indicates that a bone marrow aspiration and bone marrow biopsy are procedures used to diagnose this disease process. This patient's diagnosis was based on the pathology (presumably from a bone marrow biopsy).

NOTE: This is a reportable case. Ambiguous terminology is used to accession cases (determine reportability) because it has been used for over 30 years to do so. Any deviation from using ambiguous terminology to determine case reportability would cause the reporting of incidence counts to vary. In this case, there was a reportable, ambiguous terminology diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma on the pathology report; as well as a reportable physician's statement/diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma.

Ambiguous terminology, however, is not used to report a more specific diagnosis for the Heme & Lymphoid neoplasms. For example, if the pathology report final diagnosis was "Myeloproliferative neoplasm, probably Polycythemia Vera" the histology would be coded as myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable [9975/3]. The ambiguous terminology indicates that the genetic testing, immunophenotyping, etc., probably are not complete or are not diagnostic of the more specific disease. Wait to code the histology until there is a definite diagnosis given.

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
20110096 Behavior--Lung: How is behavior to be coded for a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of a lung tumor that is further classified per the CAP protocol as, "non-mucinous bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma (adenocarcinoma in situ)" while the pathologist also classifies the tumor as pT1b, pN0? See Discussion. Is the following case coded with an invasive or in situ behavior when a RUL lobectomy specimen reveals adenocarcinoma and the Histologic Type per the CAP protocol layout is non-mucinous bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma (adenocarcinoma in situ)? The stage per the pathologist is pT1b, pN0. Per the COMMENT section in the pathology report, "The terminology adenocarcinoma in situ is based on a recent publication in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology (Volume 6, #2, February 2011). Based on this criterion, the behavior represents adenocarcinoma in situ with no evident invasive component." Code the behavior as in situ. The pathologist has the final say on the behavior of the tumor. This pathologist is indicating that in his opinion based on a recent publication, this tumor is in situ. 2011
20110077 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be reported if different recurrence scores are found on the Oncotype Dx studies performed for multiple tumors in the same breast if the clinician states the patient has two primaries but the pathologist does not address the issue? See Discussion. A patient has two separate lesions in the same quadrant with the same histology. According to the MP/H rules this is a single primary. However, Oncotype Dx studies were performed on both tumors and the DX recurrence was different for each tumor. The medical oncologist states the patient has two primaries. The pathologist does not indicate the number of primaries.

This is a single primary. The only rules used to determine the number of primaries are the MP/H rules for cases diagnosed 2007 or later. Do not use other information such as Oncotype Dx to determine the number of primaries for a patient. Oncotype is used to determine whether the cancer is likely to recur AND whether the cancer would benefit from chemotherapy.

The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. Once in the manual, locate the Breast MP rules under one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text).

Start with the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M4. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module from Rule M4 to Rule M13. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.

The patient has two tumors in the same breast with the same histology. Abstract a single primary for this patient.

2011
20110027 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries/Histology--Thyroid: How many primaries and what histology(ies) are coded when a patient is diagnosed with a single papillary carcinoma in the left thyroid lobe and multiple foci of papillary microcarcinoma in the right thyroid lobe? See Discussion.

Is the term papillary microcarcinoma being used to describe the size of the foci only, or are the right thyroid lobe lesions a different histologic type? Does rule M6 apply (single primary)? Or does rule M11 apply (multiple primaries)?

Case summary: Left thyroid with 2.2 cm papillary carcinoma and right thyroid with "multiple microscopic foci of papillary carcinoma (papillary microcarcinoma) ranging from less than 1 mm to 2 mm in greatest dimension."

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.

For thyroid cancer only, the term micropapillary does not refer to a specific histologic type. It means that the papillary portion of the tumor is minimal or occult. The histology is the same in both lobes of the thyroid.

The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a thyroid primary, use the Other Sites MP rules under one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) to determine the number of primaries because the thyroid does not have site specific rules.

Start with the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module from Rule M3 to Rule M18. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.

. This patient has multiple papillary carcinomas of the thyroid diagnosed simultaneously; no other rule applies, so this is a single primary. Abstract a single primary for this patient.

Determine the histology code. For a thyroid, use one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Other Sites Histo rules to determine histology because thyroid primaries do not have site specific rules.

Start with the MULTIPLE TUMORS ABSTRACTED AS A SINGLE PRIMARY module, Rule H18. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module from Rule H18 to Rule H31. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.

. Code papillary carcinoma of the thyroid to papillary adenocarcinoma, NOS [8260].

 2011
20110061

Primary site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the primary site and histology codes be updated when a patient with a history in 2005 of a bone marrow diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia later presents in 2010 with lymph node biopsy diagnosis of small B-cell lymphocytic leukemia?

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

Per Rule M2, this is a single primary because there is a single histology. Code histology to 9823/3 [CLL/SLL]/

The distinction of CLL vs. SLL cannot be made on bone marrow biopsy in isolation. The pathologist cannot make a diagnosis of CLL vs SLL without having peripheral blood counts available for review. If the patient was treated for CLL in the past, that may alter the peripheral counts seen in 2010 (e.g., lymphocytosis). The distinguishing feature is peripheral lymphocytosis in CLL (not seen in SLL). The disease looks the same and both will often have bone marrow involvement and lymph node involvement. If the patient had true CLL in 2005, then any subsequent lymph node (or other) biopsy consistent with CLL/SLL remains consistent with the original diagnosis of CLL. I would not change the original CLL code.

I agree with the previous response. We have to assume the 2005 diagnosis included a peripheral blood supporting that diagnosis. Otherwise, CLL and SLL look the same in nodes and marrow. The interplay between the two "diseases" is expected. This is why they are considered a single disease.

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
20110002 Surgery of Primary Site--Penis: How is CO2 laser treatment coded for penile cancer? Assign code 14 [laser] for CO2 laser treatment given for primary penile cancer. The CO2 is the method used to deliver the laser. 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
20110090 MP/H Rules/Histology/Behavior--Ovary: How are these fields coded for a 20 cm borderline mucinous tumor with a 0.3 cm minor focus of intraepithelial carcinoma of the ovary that the pathologist stages as T1a?

According to the MP/H rules, code histology to 8010/2 [intraepithelial carcinoma] for cases diagnosed 2007-2014. Borderline mucinous tumor is not reportable to SEER.

The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Go to the Other Sites Histo rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual.

Start at the SINGLE TUMOR: IN SITU ONLY module, rule H1. Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. The only reportable histology in this case is intraepithelial carcinoma [8010/2].

2011
20110047

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted when a patient is diagnosed with NHL, large B-cell lymphoma in 3/2010 followed by a "recurrence of previously diagnosed" NHL per a 12/2010 liver biopsy? See Discussion.

Are there timing rules related to the comparison of slides from a subsequent hematopoietic primary diagnosis to the slides from the original hematopoietic primary diagnosis that impact the number or primaries reported?

For example, how many primaries are reported for a patient was diagnosed in 3/2010 with large B-cell lymphoma who underwent 7 rounds of chemo. Per 10/2010 PET scan, there was no evidence of disease. In 12/2010 a liver biopsy revealed, "features consistent with recurrence of previously diagnosed non-Hodgkin lymphoma." The pathologist did not compare slides to the original, but several immunoperoxidase stains were done to obtain the final diagnosis in 12/2010.

Does timing or comparison to the original slides matter for Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms? Is a comparison of slides needed as required for solid tumor "recurrences"?

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

This case should be accessioned as one primary per Rule M15, 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma]. Per Rule M15 one is to use the Heme DB Multiple Primaries Calculator to determine the number of primaries for all cases that do not meet the criteria of M1-M14. The 12/2010 liver diagnosis of NHL, NOS [9591/3] is the same primary per the Multiple Primaries Calculator.

There are no timing rules for lymphoma other than rules M8-M13 which deal with the timing of chronic and acute diagnoses.

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
20110053 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned for a patient with a several month history of refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB), that may or may not have been treated, who now presents with a bone marrow biopsy that is compatible with acute myeloid leukemia?

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

Per Rule M10, abstract multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm AND there is a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis. Two primaries should be accessioned for this case: refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB) [9983/3] (a chronic neoplasm), and acute myeloid leukemia [9861/3] (an acute neoplasm).

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