Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
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 |
|
|
20081063 | MP/H Rules--Breast: How many primaries should be abstracted when a patient has a mass at 6:00 that showed poorly differentiated ductal carcinoma and a hypoechoic nodule at 9:00 that was excised with no real tumor present there though path showed angiolymphatic invasion by carcinoma throughout the entire specimen? See Discussion. | Palpable mass in right breast at 6:00. Path stated 'poorly differentiated ductal carcinoma with extensive necrosis and extensive angiolymphatic invasion. Focal high grade comedocarcinoma (1%)'. Another hypoechoic nodule was seen at the 9:00 position. This mass was excised from surrounding tissue. This mass was more like an inflammatory mass; there was no real tumor present there. Path report stated "Breast mass 9:00 excisional biopsy - angiolymphatic invasion by mammary carcinoma throughout the entire specimen." Is this two primaries because of the two different histology codes: 8500 and 8010? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract as a single primary using rule M3 (a single tumor is always a single primary). There was one tumor present according to the information provided. The second specimen was not a separate tumor ("There was no real tumor present there"). | 2008 |
|
|
20051095 | Chemotherapy/Immunotherapy: How do we code Rituxan for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Herceptin for breast cancer? See Discussion. | Page 195 of the SEER Manual 2004 lists these as examples of Immunotherapy. The new SEER*Rx categorizes these as chemotherapy. (Sinq # 20041025 says to code Avastin and Erbitux as chemotherapy, too.) |
Code Rituxan and Herceptin as chemotherapy. SEER*Rx is effective for cases diagnosed 1-1-2005 and forward. It replaces all previous references. Be sure to use SEER*Rx [http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/seerrx/] because some agents changed categories when SEER*Rx was deployed. It is neither required nor recommended that cases treated prior to 2005 be recoded. |
2005 |
|
|
20020054 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Ovary: Are mucinous cystic tumors of low malignant potential diagnosed in the left ovary in 12/2000 and in the right ovary in 7/2001 reportable as two primaries? See discussion. |
Page 14 of the SEER Program Code Manual, 3rd Edition, states that bilateral retinoblastomas and bilateral Wilms tumor are always single primaries whether simultaneous or not. Does this apply to bilateral ovarian tumors as well? |
For cases diagnosed 2001-2006: Borderline tumors are not reportable to SEER as of 2001. If you are collecting them in your registry, use the following procedure: Exception 1 in the SEER Program Code Manual, 3rd Edition, responds to the issue of processing ovarian tumors. Simultaneously occurring ovarian tumors with a single histology are coded as one primary. In the case you cite, the right ovary primary occurred 7 months after the left ovary primary. This is not simultaneous, so it would be counted as a second primary. For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules. |
2002 |
|
|
20120045 | Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the primary site of a diffuse large B-cell lymphoma described on a PET and an abdominal CT scan as a large pelvic mass displacing bladder and uterus, inseparable from anus, right pelvic sidewall, cervix and bilateral ovaries and per the clinician as stage IIE? See Discussion. | PET: large pelvic mass displacing bladder and uterus, inseparable from anus, right pelvic sidewall, cervix and bilateral ovaries. Diffuse abnormal uptake within this mass as well as the adjacent structures. No regional hypermetabolic adenopathy is noted and no imaging evidence of distant metastatic disease. The PET also demonstrated diffuse abnormal uptake within the pelvic mass as well as the adjacent structures.
CT abdomen: large pelvic mass invading vagina and inseparable from the anus, right pelvic sidewall, cervix and bilateral ovaries.
MD states: "stage IIE with invasion of vagina." |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule 18, code the primary site to C775 [pelvic lymph nodes]. Per Rule PH18, code the primary site to the specified lymph node region when the site of lymphoma is described only as a mass. This rule also indicates that the Code pelvic lymph nodes [C775] when the lymph nodes are described as a pelvic mass.
This rule has been effect for SEER for over 20 years. It is based on the fact that a number of lymphomas that originate in nodes are not diagnosed until those nodes become matted or fixed. The presentation is then one of a "mass" in those nodal regions.
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. |
2012 |
|
|
20010006 | Terminology/EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: Is "firm" a term that implies clinically apparent prostate disease? See discussion. | PE: Prostate firm on DRE IMP: Rule out prostate cancer |
For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to clinically inapparent. The clinically apparent term list classifies "firm" as "maybe" being involved. If a maybe term such as "firm" is the only description available, code as clinically inapparent. |
2001 |
|
|
20130206 | Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What rule applies to code a primary site for a peripheral blood diagnosis of marginal zone lymphoma that has a positive flow cytometry/FISH analysis when no biopsies are performed, scans show no evidence of disease, exam indicates no lymph nodes are palpable and the physician's clinical diagnosis "marginal zone lymphoma, unspecified site, stage 1"? See Discussion. | PE: No palpable lymph nodes.
PET scan: No spleen or lymph node uptake; no uptake anywhere in the body.
Peripheral blood and flow cytometry/FISH analysis diagnosis: Marginal zone lymphoma.
No bone marrow or biopsy of any lymph nodes done. Doctor states "marginal zone lymphoma, unspecified site, stage 1." |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule PH27, code the primary site to C809 [unknown primary]. According to Rule PH27 one is to code the primary site to unknown primary site C809 when there is no evidence of lymphoma in lymph nodes AND the physician documents in the medical record that he/she suspects that the lymphoma originates in an organ(s) OR multiple organ involvement without any nodal involvement.
If further workup is done and a primary site is determined, update the primary site for this case.
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 |
|
|
20021091 | Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Are the terms "thrombocytosis, NOS" and "thrombocythemia, NOS" non-reportable to SEER? See discussion. |
Our understanding from SEER about how to classify these types of clinical impressions for the 2001 and later reportable blood diseases is as follows: If we cannot prove that it is malignant, then we should be conservative and exclude the case for reporting to SEER. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:The terms "thrombocytosis, NOS" and "thrombocythemia, NOS" are not reportable to SEER. For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ. |
2002 |
|
|
20020020 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: When two breast tumors with two different histologies, such as duct and mucinous are diagnosed in the same breast at the same time, are they reportable as two primaries? See discussion. |
Our rule is that multiple lesions of different histologic types are separate primaries. However, for separate tumors of duct and lobular, we report as a single primary. Since we now have a combination code for duct and other types of ca, do we report as a single primary or continue to report as separate primaries? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: When there are two breast tumors, one mucinous, the other duct carcinoma, report as two primaries when the pathologist's opinion clearly states that there are separate primaries. If there is no such information from the pathologist, the two tumors must be separate with clear (negative) margins to be reported as two primaries. Otherwise, report as one primary. The ICD-O-3 combination codes are not intended to combine tumors of different histologic types. For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules. |
2002 |
|
|
20170036 | Grade--Prostate: How are the prostate-related fields completed when documentation in pathology reports only includes one of the new grade groups? See Discussion. |
Our pathologists have starting to use a new prostate cancer grading system that was adopted by WHO in 2016. The new grading scheme correlates with the prior Gleason grading scheme as follows: Grade Group 1 = Gleason score 6 or less Grade Group 2 = Gleason score 3+4=7 Grade Group 3 = Gleason score 4+3 = 7 Grade Group 4 = Gleason score 8 Grade Group 5 = Gleason score 9-10 Our pathologists are no longer dictating the Gleason Primary and Secondary Pattern values nor the Gleason's Score. Reverse correlation from the new grade groups to the required patterns and score are difficult with Grade Groups 2 and 3 needing to be distinguished from one another and Grade Group 5 including two unique scores. The prostate-related fields include: Collaborative Site Specific Factor 7: Gleason's Primary Pattern and Secondary Pattern Values on Needle Core Biopsy/TURP Collaborative Site Specific Factor 8: Gleason's Score On Needle Core Biopsy/TURP Collaborative Site Specific Factor 9: Gleason's Primary Pattern and Secondary Pattern Values on Prostatectomy/Autopsy Collaborative Site Specific Factor 10: Gleason's Score on Prostatectomy/Autopsy |
When all you have is the grade group, you may use the following table to convert the Prostate Grade Groups to the appropriate code for the indicated fields. Grade Group Gleason Score Gleason Pattern SSF7 SSF8 SSF9 SSF10 Grade/diff Grade Group 1 6 or less <=3+3 099 999 099 999 1 Grade Group 2 7 3+4 034 007 034 007 2 Grade Group 3 7 4+3 043 007 043 007 2 Grade Group 4 8 4+4, 3+5, 5+3 999 999 999 999 3 Grade Group 5 9-10 4+5, 5+4, 5+5 099 999 099 999 3 |
2017 |
An official website of the United States government
