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: 12/31/2025 08:08 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
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
20100009 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Bladder: Is a new primary accessioned for a 2009 diagnosis of transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder when the patient has a history of invasive bladder cancer NOS diagnosed? See Discussion.

A patient has a history of invasive bladder cancer diagnosed several years ago in another state. In 2009, the patient was admitted and found to have a positive biopsy for transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder.

Is this a new primary because the histology of the previous bladder cancer is unknown? When the histology of a previously diagnosed bladder cancer is unknown, should we assume the previous tumor was urothelial carcinoma?

 For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, apply rule M6. The 2009 diagnosis is not a new primary. Transitional cell carcinomas account for more than 90% of bladder cancers. If the patient actually had a rare small cell, squamous cell, or adenocarcinoma of the bladder in the past, it is highly likely it would be mentioned in the medical record. 2010
20100064

Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology to be coded for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and/or precursor B acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Pre-B ALL) for cases diagnosed 2010 and later? The Heme Database has two histology codes for this disease, both 9811/3 and 9836/3, which is the correct histology code?

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

Code histology to 9811/3 [B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma, NOS].

See the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB, when determining how to code histology for a case. It indicates the code 9811/3 is effective for cases diagnosed 2010 and forward. The 9836/3 is listed as obsolete and refers you to code 9811/3. Make sure to check for a specific subtype of B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma [9812/3 - 9818/3] before assigning the NOS code [9811/3].

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
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
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
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
20100025

MP/H Rules/Primary site--Kidney, Renal Pelvis: Should the primary site be changed to C689 [Urinary system, NOS] for a primary renal pelvis tumor after additional tumors are found months later in different urinary sites (e.g., bladder or ureter) and the MP/H Rules indicate these are all the same primary? See Discussion.

In a patient is diagnosed 1/29/08 with an invasive grade 3 of 3 papillary urothelial cell carcinoma arising in the depth of a calyx in mid portion of kidney, the primary site was coded C659 [Renal pelvis]. In 6/1/09 a TURBT showed three separate lesions on the right side of the bladder. The final diagnosis was high grade urothelial carcinoma in-situ with three tumors, the largest being 7mm. Per rule M8, the renal pelvis primary and subsequent bladder tumors are the same primary. Would the primary site be changed to C689 [Urinary system, NOS] when the bladder tumors were identified? Or is C689 only coded if more than one primary site is involved at diagnosis?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M8 applies. This is a single primary. The primary site was coded to C659 in 2008. Do not change the primary site code.

 2010
20100100 Primary site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are these fields coded for a Langerhans cell histiocytosis diagnosed on an excisional biopsy of the T8 vertebral bone? See Discussion. The patient had an excisional biopsy of the T8 vertebral bone, but no other tissue biopsy. The doctor confirms the case is malignant. However, Langerhans cell histiocytosis, NOS is listed as /1 (borderline) in the ICD-O-3.

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, do not use the ICD-O-3 book to determine the hematopoietic and lymphoid histology codes. Use the Hematopoietic Database and access it at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Code the histology to 9751/3 [Langerhans cell histiocytosis] and the primary site for unifocal disease to C412 [bone, vertebral column]. Per Rule PH 30, use the Heme DB to determine the primary site and histology when PH1-PH29 do not apply. Per the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB, lytic bone lesions are the most common primary site.

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
20100056

Primary site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are these fields coded for a case with pathologic diagnosis of "anaplastic large cell lymphoma, ALK-negative" involving the brain and a clinical statement of involvement in the right inguinal lymph nodes and the right lower extremity by a cutaneous lymphoma? See Discussion.

The final diagnosis on the pathology report for a brain biopsy is "Anaplastic large cell lymphoma, ALK-negative." Per a progress note: right inguinal lymphadenopathy. CT scan is consistent with multiple lymph node groups enlarged. Right lower extremity cutaneous nodular lesion; cutaneous lesions likely cutaneous lymphoma.

Should the histology be coded 9702/3 [anaplastic large cell lymphoma, ALK-negative], and the primary site C447 [skin of leg]? Or is the physician using "cutaneous lymphoma" as a general term indicating infiltration and the primary site is really C779 [lymph nodes, NOS]?

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

Code to primary site to C447 [skin of leg]) per Rule PH25 and histology to 9702/3 [anaplastic large cell lymphoma, ALK-negative]. Per the Abstractor Notes section in Heme DB, these are the usual presentations for this disease. It also states this disease presents with peripheral node involvement and is often generalized with infiltrates in the bone marrow, liver, spleen, and extranodal tissue. Less frequently involved sites are lung, salivary gland and CNS.

Per PH25, code the primary site to the organ when the lymphoma is present in an organ (skin, right leg) and that organ's regional lymph nodes (inguinal). Distant lymph nodes or other organs may also be involved, but should be disregarded for coding primary site.

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
20100018 Reportability/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is light chain disease reportable if it is treated with chemotherapy agents? See Discussion.

A patient was diagnosed in 2010 with light chain disease based on SPEP and urine testing. Bone marrow aspiration and biopsy were done. Flow cytometry, cytogenetic studies and FISH for plasma cell disorders are all normal. Medical oncologist states diagnosis is light chain disease. Patient was started on Revlimid, dexamethasone and Velcade.

In reviewing the case reportability instructions, this seems to fall under Instruction 1, note 1. Immunoglobulin deposition disease, preferred term for light chain disease, is coded as 9769/1. This is normally a non-reportable diagnosis, but the patient was given cancer-directed treatment. Would this case be accessioned using the above morphology code and primary site of bone marrow [C42.1]?

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

This case is not reportable. The histology is 9769/1 [light chain disease] in the Heme DB.

Light chains are produced in neoplastic plasma cells (multiple myeloma) and are called Bence-Jones proteins. The physician did the cytogenetic studies and FISH to rule out plasma cell disease. 50-60% of people with Light-chain deposition disease (LCDD) have an associated lymphoproliferative disorder, most commonly multiple myeloma. The remaining patients develop LCDD in the setting of progression of monoclonal gammopathy of unknown significance (MGUS) with no evidence of neoplastic plasma cell proliferation. This patient falls in this category, MGUS, which is not reportable.

2010