Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20100106 | Reportability-Bladder: Is a case with a cytology diagnosis, "positive for malignancy, favor low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma" reportable if the diagnosis on a subsequent bladder biopsy showed only "urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential"? See Discussion. | On 11/23/09 the patient had urine cytology diagnosis "positive for malignancy, favor low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma." On 12/28/09, the bladder biopsy showed "urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential."
SINQ 20081086 only addresses the example of a positive FNA/biopsy followed by a negative resection. Would the previous decision hold for this case when a positive fine needle aspiration biopsy is followed by only a negative biopsy? |
This case is not reportable. The pathology proved the cytology to be incorrect. The pathologic diagnosis is the "gold standard." When cytology and pathology disagree, use pathology.
|
Bladder | N/A | 2010 |
|
|
20170042 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) with large cell transformation equivalent to a diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) without mention of Richter transformation or Richter Syndrome? See Discussion. |
The patient has a history of CLL/SLL dating back to 2007, but has had progressive disease with development of a new left frontal brain tumor. The brain tumor resection proved CLL/SLL with large cell transformation, but neither the pathologist nor the managing physician called this a Richter transformation, Richter syndrome or provided a diagnosis of DLBCL. However, a large cell transformation of CLL/SLL is a Richter transformation. Can this be accessioned as a new acute neoplasm per Rule M10? |
Accession as multiple primaries according to Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Coding Manual Rule M10. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) followed by CLL/SLL with large cell transformation is multiple primaries because it is a chronic neoplasm followed by an acute neoplasm, more than 21 days in this case. |
Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms | N/A | 2017 |
|
|
20100079 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Does the fact that the Hematopoietic Database states the ICD-O-3 code 9970/1 [Lymphoproliferative disorder/disease, NOS] mean that the ICD-O-3 books should be updated to indicate that as of 2010 the code 9970/1 [Lymphoproliferative disorder/disease, NOS] is no longer applicable? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Lymphoproliferative disorder/disease, NOS [9970/1] is not a reportable neoplasm. There are also new codes that define lymphoproliferative disorder/disease more specifically. If you do a "smart search" and enter only the word "lymphoproliferative" into the Heme DB, you will get a listing of all of the reportable and non-reportable terms. That enables you to look at your record and compare the words in the Heme DB to those in the record you are reviewing.
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. |
Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms | N/A | 2010 | |
|
|
20100075 | Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be accessioned when a 1/27/10 bone marrow biopsy, FISH and cytogenetics reveals chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), BCR/ABL positive, t(9;22)(q34;q11) and a 4/15/10 bone marrow biopsy reveals B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Blast phase of CML)? | 1/27/10 BM biopsy: CML BCR/ABL+ FISH positive for BCR/ABL and cytogenetics showing the t(9;22)q34q11.2 translocation. Treated with Imatinib. 4/15/10 BM biopsy: B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Blast phase of CML). Would the term "blast phase of CML" indicate the 4/15/10 bone marrow biopsy showed CML or would a new primary be abstracted with histology coded 9811/3 [B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma, NOS]?
Applying rule M10, this is a new primary, but note 2 states transformations are defined in the Heme DB. The Abstractor Notes section indicates CML has three phases: chronic, accelerated, and the blastic phase or blast crisis. The accelerated phase can last weeks to months. In the chronic phase the involvement is usually limited to blood, bone marrow and spleen although the liver may be infiltrated. During the blastic phase, lymph nodes and tissue may be involved. The blastic phase is a disease progression from the chronic phase. The disease, however, remains the same histology, chronic myelogenous leukemia. |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case represents a multiple primary per Rule M15 which states you are 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 histology for the first primary is coded to 9875/3 [chronic myelogenous leukemia, BCR-ABL1 positive].
The histology for the second primary is 9811/3 [B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma, NOS] in the absence of further documentation that the B-ALL was also positive for the t(9;22) translocation.
The histology code 9806/3 [Mixed phenotype acute leukemia with t(9;22)(q34;q11.2); BCR-ABL1] cannot be used for the second primary because there is no documentation that the B-ALL diagnosed on 04/15/2010 also had the t(9;22) translocation and this histology cannot be used in patients ." Per the Definition section in the Heme DB, in order to use histology code 9806/3 "This leukemia meets the criteria for mixed phenotype acute leukemia (MPAL) in which the blasts also have t(9;22) translocation of BCR-ABL1 rearrangement. Some patients with chronic myeloid leukemia may develop or even present with a mixed blast phase that would meet criteria for MPAL; however, this diagnosis should not be made in patients known to have had CML."
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. |
Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms | N/A | 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. | Bladder | N/A | 2010 |
|
|
20110045 | Reportability--Ovary: Is immature teratoma of the ovary reportable if a subsequent comment states that "the teratoma shows immature neuroepithelium, but no malignant elements"? | There is conflicting information for this case. The final diagnosis conflicts with the comment. Go back and check with the physician to clarify his/her intent. If no further information can be obtained, the final diagnosis is preferred over the comment. This case is reportable based on the final diagnosis: "immature teratoma." | Ovary | N/A | 2011 | |
|
|
20170057 | Grade: If the biopsy site is a higher grade, is the grade of the biopsy used over the grade of the surgical resection? See Discussion. |
When coding tumor grade, our pathologists have told us to code grade based on the specimen from the most definitive surgery or with the most amount of tissue, and that coding grade from the biopsy would not be appropriate even if it is a higher grade than from the surgical resection. Coding of solid tumors Instruction 5 states: If there is more than one grade, code the highest grade within the applicable system. Code the highest grade even if it is only a focus. Code grade in the following priority order using the first applicable system. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 2018: Use the Grade Coding Instructions to code grade. The instructions are intended to standardize coding of grade across the U.S. and to eliminate differences in opinion between pathologists. Standardized coding ensures that data can be combined and used for statistical analysis. You may code grade based on the biopsy when following the grade coding instructions. |
N/A | N/A | 2017 |
|
|
20021131 | EOD-Extension: If extension/metastasis is found within 4 months of diagnosis, but after first course of cancer-directed therapy has ended, should that involvement be excluded when coding the EOD-extension field? See discussion. | Example: Spinal drop metastasis was diagnosed within 4 months of the initial diagnosis of a localized astrocytoma, but after treatment with surgery and XRT was completed. | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Do not include the spinal metastasis because it was diagnosed after the extent of disease was established. If metastasis was not present at diagnosis, and not discovered during the original metastatic work-up, it is progression of disease. |
N/A | N/A | 2002 |
|
|
20250013 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Testis: How many primaries and what M Rule applies when metastatic seminoma is diagnosed greater than 40 years after a left testicular teratoma with yolk sac tumor and embryonal carcinoma? See Discussion. |
The patient was diagnosed with a left testis primary in the early 1980s that did not include a seminoma component per the information available. The slides were not available for review. In 2024, the patient was found to have a metastatic seminoma involving multiple pelvic lymph nodes and the prostate. The right testicular ultrasound was negative. The managing physician noted this was both a "relapsed seminoma" and a "Stage IIC seminoma." Should the new diagnosis of metastatic seminoma be accessioned as a new primary based on the histology differences? Or is this situation similar to SINQ 20160073 in which this is a single primary even though the metastases are a distinctly different histology? |
Without evidence of a new testicular tumor, record this as a single primary now with metastatic disease (seminoma). The seminoma may not have been identified in the original tumor and treatment was based on the histologies found. This allowed the seminoma to metastasize. |
Testis | N/A | 2025 |
|
|
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. |
Bladder | N/A | 2011 |
An official website of the United States government
