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: 02/27/2026 09:29 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20130094 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries are accessioned and which M rule applies for a 2010 diagnosis of clear cell adenocarcinoma of the left upper lobe lung followed by a 2012 diagnosis of adenosquamous carcinoma of lung origin without evidence of a primary lung tumor? See Discussion.

Patient was diagnosed with T1 N0 M0 adenocarcinoma with prominent clear cell features [8310/3] in the LUL on 08/05/2010. The patient underwent a lobectomy only.

On 10/09/2012 the patient underwent an iliac bone biopsy showing non-small cell carcinoma with glandular and squamous features [8560/3]. Clinically, the physician is calling this stage IV adenosquamous carcinoma of lung origin involving lymph nodes, spleen and bones. There were no FDG avid pulmonary nodules found. There was no pathologic comparison to the prior lung tumor.

Should the 2012 diagnosis be a new primary because the histology is different from the 2010 diagnosis? Or should this be one primary because there appears to be only metastatic disease with no new primary lung tumor identified in 2012? The choice of one primary seems supported by the fact that the 2012 tumor showed glandular and squamous features, and the 2010 tumor also showed glandular and clear cell (NOS) features. The clear cell could have been a clear cell squamous cell carcinoma. The original tumor was not re-examined.

Accession a single primary, clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] of the left upper lobe lung [C341] diagnosed on 08/05/2010.

The MP/H Rules do not apply to the 2012 diagnosis because only metastatic sites were examined and there was no re-examination of the original 2010 tumor. Therefore, the disease process in 2012 is assumed to be metastatic from the lung primary diagnosed in 2010.

2013
20130042 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is follicular lymphoma in situ reportable? See Discussion.

Parotid mass and intraparotid lymph node biopsy: Follicular lymphoma in situ (see note).

Note: The morphologic findings in conjunction with the results of immunohistochemical stains demonstrate focal follicular lymphoma in situ in a background of reactive follicular hyperplasia. Cytogenetic studies on the parotid mass demonstrated a normal karyotype. FISH analysis for BCL2 and BCL6 gene rearrangements has been requested and will be reported separately.

Per the Note under Case Reportability Instructions Rule 3 in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Manual, do not report in situ [/2] lymphomas. 2013
20130078

Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a physician diagnosis of "appears to be a myeloproliferative disorder" reportable if the patient has no treatment and the physician elects to follow the patient with CBC's?.

Yes. This is a reportable diagnosis and should be accessioned with the histology coded to 9975/3 [myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable].

The word is a reportable ambiguous term per the Hematopoietic Coding Manual (Case Reportability Instructions, Rule 4).

Myeloproliferative disorder is synonymous with myeloproliferative disease. Myeloproliferative disease is listed as an alternate name for myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable.

 2013
20130215

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis synonymous with an EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disorder in children reportable? See Discussion.

Pathology report states: Prominent T-cell infiltrate with frequent immunoblast-like cells. COMMENT: Findings consistent with an acute EBV-associated hemophagocytic process. In addition, there is a prominent CD8 + T-cell infiltrate with many large, activated forms. This T-cell process may represent an EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disorder in children.

EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disorder in children is listed in the Heme database. However, throughout multiple admissions, the oncologist states the diagnosis as "hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis". Are the two the same condition?

The patient is being treated with Etoposide.

Per Appendix F, do not report this case based on the information provided.

The oncologist likely used the pathology report and clinical factors to determine the diagnosis of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, which is not reportable. Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis is caused by an over stimulated immune system (infection, etc.). This clinical syndrome is associated with a variety of underlying conditions. To be reportable, it must state "fulminant hemophagocytic syndrome" (in a child) to be reportable (9724/3).

The pathology report for this case is not definitive. It states that the process "may" represent the EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disorder in children.

Follow back on this case to confirm reportability if possible.

 2013
20130156 Other therapy--Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms: Based on the hematopoietic manual instructions, is plasmapheresis coded as treatment for Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia? See Discussion.

A patient, who was diagnosed with Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia at another facility, presented to our facility for plasmapheresis on 12/27/2012. No other treatment was given.

How is the plasmapheresis coded for treatment?

Do not code plasmapheresis as treatment. It does not modify the neoplasm. 2013
20130090 MP/H Rules/Primary site/Histology--Colon/Rectum: How are the primary site and histology to be coded for a diagnosis of familial polyposis with malignant tumors in the sigmoid and rectum? See Discussion.

Preoperative diagnosis was familial polyposis with rectal and rectosigmoid cancer.

The pathology report from the colon resection showed:

  1. 5 mm tumor in the sigmoid. Histologic type: adenocarcinoma.

  • 1.9 cm tumor in the distal rectum. Histologic type: adenocarcinoma with signet ring cell differentiation.

  • 4 cm tumor in the proximal rectum. Histologic type: adenocarcinoma.

    • Gross description: The mucosa of the colon is tan pink with polyposis throughout; more than 1000 tan sessile polyps.

    Should this be a single primary per MP/H Rule M3, histology coded to 8220/3 [familial polyposis] per MP/H Rule H17, and primary site coded to C199?

    This case should be accessioned as a single primary. Code the primary site to the colon and rectum [C199] and the histology to adenocarcinoma in familial polyposis coli [8220/3] per MP/H Rule H17.

    For cases of familial polyposis, when the rectosigmoid or rectum are involved, assign code C199 [colon and rectum]. When the rectosigmoid or rectum are not involved, assign code C189 [colon, NOS].

    		2013
    		20130222 MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: How is the histology coded for a single bladder tumor showing invasive urothelial carcinoma with extensive divergent differentiation including small cell carcinoma, micropapillary carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma features? See Discussion. MP/H rules seem to lead to Rule H8 which indicates that one use the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code. If one applies Rule H8, the histology is coded to 8131/3 [micropapillary urothelial carcinoma]. That would ignore the small cell carcinoma, which seems prognostically more significant. Code the histology to 8045/3 [mixed small cell carcinoma], a combination of small cell with other types of carcinoma. There is currently no rule in the urinary site MP/H Rules for this combination of histologies. This will be included in the next revision of the MP/H Rules. 2013
    		20130181 Multiple Primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should Rule M4 or the Heme DB be used to determine whether diffuse large B-cell lymphoma of the large intestine and peripheral T-cell lymphoma of the bone marrow represents one or two primaries? See Discussion.

    The Heme DB identifies these as new primaries:

    10/12/12 Large intestine, biopsy: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

    10/12/12 Bone marrow biopsy: Peripheral T-cell lymphoma.

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

    Per Rule M15, accession two primaries. According to Rule M15, use the multiple primaries calculator to determine the number of primaries for all cases that do not meet the criteria of M1-M14. Per the calculator, this scenario represents two primaries.

    Assuming the only area of involvement is the large intestine, code the histology to 9680/3 [diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma] and per Rule PH24 code the primary site to C189 [colon, NOS]. According to PH24, one is to code the primary site to the organ when lymphoma is present only in an organ.

    Rule PH26 applies to the second primary. Assuming the only area of involvement is the bone marrow, code the histology to 9702/3 [peripheral T-cell lymphoma] and code the primary site to C421 [bone marrow]. According to PH26, one is to code the primary site to bone marrow (C421) when lymphoma is present only in the bone marrow.

    Rule M4 does not apply for this case. Rule M4 applied when you have two or more types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the same anatomic location. That is not the case in this scenario.

    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.

    		2013
    		20130012

    MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: If topography codes C681-C689 are not included in Urinary Multiple Primary Rule M8, would a subsequent renal pelvis papillary transitional cell carcinoma be a new primary? See Discussion.

    The patient had a papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder and ureter diagnosed in 2010. The primary site was coded to C689 [urinary system, NOS]. The patient was diagnosed with a transitional cell carcinoma of the renal pelvis [C659] in 2012. In applying the MP/H rules to the 2012 diagnosis, rule M8 would be ignored because the primary site of the 2010 primary was coded to C689. The result is that M9 or M10 would be applied which indicates a new primary for the 2012 diagnosis. Should the 2012 renal pelvis carcinoma be a new primary?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession a single primary, papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder and ureter [C689, urinary system, NOS] diagnosed in 2010. 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 Urinary MP Rules because site specific rules exist for this primary.

    Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. This patient has urothelial tumors in two or more of the listed sites (bladder, ureter and renal pelvis) diagnosed within 3 years.

    When C689 is assigned because tumors of the bladder and tumors of the ureter were determined to be a single primary and the site of origin is not known (as in this example), rule M8 is applied when a subsequent tumor is diagnosed in one of the listed sites. However, if site C689 [urinary system, NOS] was assigned for other unknown urinary primary site situations, rule M8 would not be used.

    Rule M8 was written specifically for urothelial tumors in the renal pelvis, ureter, bladder and urethra. Paraurethral gland [C681] and overlapping lesions of urinary organs [C688] do not belong in rule M8.

    We will add this issue to the list of possible revisions for the next edition of the MP/H Rules.

    		 2013
    		20130041 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a flow cytometry immunophenotyping of peripheral blood that demonstrates a chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) phenotype reportable as CLL? See Discussion. Final Diagnosis: "Peripheral blood, flow cytometry immunophenotyping: Monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) phenotype; Negative for Zap 70; No abnormal T-cell population identified; CD34-positive blasts are not increased.

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

    This is reportable. Code the histology to 9823/3 [chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)]. Per Rule PH5, Note 1, CLL will always have peripheral blood involvement. Based on the provided information, this patient's peripheral blood is positive 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.

    		2013