| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20130085 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient was treated in 1999 with Vidaza for myelodysplastic syndrome and had a recent biopsy that demonstrated a transformation to acute myeloid leukemia? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph. This case should be accessioned as a single primary, acute myeloid leukemia [9861/3]. MDS diagnosed prior to 1/1/2001 is not a reportable disease process. However, because MDS is currently a reportable disease process, it must be considered when trying to determine whether the AML represents a separate primary.
Rule M2 does not apply to this case because more than one histology is mentioned in the scenario. According to the Heme DB, MDS can transform to AML. Rules M8-M13 apply to cases involving transformation. In this case, Rule M10 applies because the patient was diagnosed with a chronic neoplasm (myelodysplastic syndrome) followed greater than 21 days later by an acute neoplasm (AML). 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 | |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20130148 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are "spinal" schwannomas reportable if stated to be extradural, vertebral nerve sheath, or of specific vertebrae? See Discussion. | Are any of the following cases reportable?
Example 1: Clinical Diagnosis: Extradural spinal cord tumor compatible with schwannoma. What assumptions should be made about reportability if the tumor is described as being extradural? The extradural spinal cord includes epidural fat surrounding the thecal sac and exiting nerve roots. Does this mean there are not nerve roots in the extradural spinal cord?
Example 2: Final Pathologic Diagnosis: Designated "C3-4 nerve sheath tumor" excision: Morphologic and immunohistochemical findings consistent with cellular schwannoma. When stated to be a "nerve sheath tumor" does that mean peripheral nerve (C47_) involvement or nerve root (C72_) involvement?
Example 3: Final Pathologic Diagnosis: T-8 vertebral tumor resection: Schwannoma with degenerative changes (calcification, cyst formation) - ganglion and nerve are identified. There is no mention clinically or pathologically whether this tumor is "intradural" or "of the nerve root." In the absence of information about whether the location of the tumor is intradural or involving the nerve root, is it assumed that it does involve this part of the spinal cord when a specific vertebrae is removed? |
Extradural schwannomas are not reportable. Neither vertebral nerve sheath nor a location of/on a specific vertebrae confirm the origin as being either extradural or intradural. Do not report a schwannoma if it cannot be determined to be "intradural" or "of the nerve root." | 2013 |
|
|
20130088 | Grade--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should Grade be coded to 5 [T-cell] or 9 [cell type not determined, not stated, not applicable] for anaplastic large cell lymphoma, NOS [9714/3]? See Discussion. | Under the Grade section in the Heme DB for anaplastic large cell lymphoma, NOS it indicates the following:
"Grade - Code grade specified by pathologist. If no grade specified, code 9."
There is no reference in the Grade section that we should look at the Abstractor Notes or a specific Module in the Heme DB for additional information. However, in the Abstractor Notes section it states, "Grade is T-cell (5) unless pathologist specifically designates as a B-cell (see G2 rule)." These two statements are conflicting. Which is the correct grade? |
Assign code 5 [T-cell] for anaplastic large cell lymphoma [9714/3] unless the pathologist specifies that the histology is a B-cell disease process. See Grade rule G2, Note 2.
In the Heme DB, there is a default value in the Grade field for histologies that do not have a grade specified. However, this particular histology does not default to code 9. There was an error in the Grade section of the 2010 and 2012 versions of Heme DB that has now been corrected in the latest release. |
2013 |
|
|
20130070 | Reportability--Is "intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm with low grade dysplasia" (also called IPMN adenoma) reportable? See Discussion. |
According to the ICD-O-3, the histology for IPMN adenoma is 8453/0 is non-reportable. However, per SINQ 20021099, this is reportable. |
Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the pancreas with low grade dysplasia, also referred to as IPMN adenoma, is not reportable. IPMN of the pancreas is reportable when stated as "IPMN with high-grade dysplasia," or "IPMN with an associated invasive carcinoma," or "IPMN with an associated in situ carcinoma." The case in SINQ 20021099 is stated to have "multifocal high grade dysplasia (so-called borderline tumor and carcinoma in-situ)" and is reportable because there is an explicit statement of carcinoma in situ, not because of the reference to the presence of high grade dysplasia. It is coded 8453/2 [Intraductal papillary-mucinous carcinoma, non-invasive]. |
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 |
|
|
20130109 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a 2004 diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia is followed by a 2013 diagnosis of myeloid sarcoma? See Discussion. |
Patient was diagnosed in 2004 with acute myeloid leukemia [9861/3] and treated with chemotherapy and transplant. Now the patient has a biopsy of an umbilical mass that is positive for myeloid sarcoma (granulocytic sarcoma) [9930/3]. |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Accession a single primary, acute myeloid leukemia [9861/3] diagnosed in 2004 per Rule M3.
When there is a myeloid sarcoma diagnosed simultaneously or after a leukemia of the same lineage, it is a single primary. The myeloid sarcoma is actually caused by the AML progressing. The myeloid cells in the bone marrow or blood literally "seep out" and implant in the tissue.
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 |
|
|
20130119 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Would this case be reportable? Patient with a myelodysplastic syndrome secondary to a copper deficiency. | Myelodysplastic syndrome is a reportable disease. Document in the text that the MDS was due to a copper deficiency. | 2013 | |
|
|
20130195 | Laterality--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is laterality coded to 0 [not paired] for all lymphoma cases including paired sites (e.g., breast, lung)? | Laterality coding for lymphomas is based on the primary site not histology. Laterality describes the side of a paired organ or side of the body on which the reportable tumor originated. Determine whether laterality should be coded for each primary.
Laterality coding instructions are located in the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual. See pages 68-70 in the 2013 manual, http://www.seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2013/SPCSM_2013_maindoc.pdf. |
2013 | |
|
|
20130052 | Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded if a biopsy final diagnosis is diffuse large B-cell lymphoma but the physician's final diagnosis favored anaplastic large cell lymphoma? See Discussion. | Patient has diffuse intrathoracic, intraabdominal and pelvic lymphadenopathy. An inguinal lymph node biopsy showed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. The physician's final diagnosis favored anaplastic large cell lymphoma, but wanted to confirm this with FISH. The patient clinically deteriorated so the FISH studies were not done. Which histology is coded? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
The histology should be coded as diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3]. The biopsy pathology report definitively diagnosed DLBCL. The physician's diagnosis cannot be used because it is an ambiguous diagnosis only, "favored anaplastic large cell lymphoma." "Favor" is an ambiguous term.
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 |
Home
