Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20100087 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned for one patient with history of marginal zone lymphoma initially diagnosed in 1994, followed by a 2010 diagnosis of large B-cell lymphoma and another patient with both B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small cell lymphoma (CLL/SLL) and diffuse large B-cell (DLBCL) in 2009? See Discussion. | Case 1 - Patient has a history of marginal zone lymphoma diagnosed in 1994 with recurrences in 2007 and 2009. The patient now presents for a bone marrow biopsy in May 2010 and is found to have large B-cell lymphoma, transformation. The first primary, marginal zone lymphoma, falls under the 2009 rules and the second primary, large B-cell lymphoma, falls under the 2010 and forward rules?
Case 2 - Patient was diagnosed with B-cell CLL/SLL and a DLBCL in 2009. If the 2009 rules only apply, these are a single primary. If the patient is admitted and treated in 2010 are the rules still based on the diagnosis date? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Case 1: Accession two primaries per Rule M10 when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm AND there is a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis. The histology for the first primary is 9699/3 [marginal zone lymphoma] represents a chronic neoplasm and the second primary is 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma] is an acute neoplasm which was diagnosed more than 21 days after the first primary.
Case 2: Do not use the Heme DB and Manual rules for this case. Both diagnoses were made prior to 2010. The Heme DB and Manual are only effective for cases diagnosed 1/1/2010 and forward. Use the ICD-O-3 Hematopoietic Primaries Table to determine the number of primaries for this case. Per the Table, a second diagnosis of DLBCL [9680/3] following a diagnosis of CLL/SLL [9823/3] is one primary.
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 |
|
|
20061034 | Primary Site--Unknown & ill-defined site: Is the primary site code C809 [Unknown primary site] preferred over the use of a site code for an organ system (e.g., biliary tract, NOS) or a specific primary site (e.g., colon, NOS) when these are "favored" but other potential sites "cannot be excluded"? See Discussion. | Case 1 - CT: Mult pulm nodules, bilat pleural effusions; paraaortic, paracaval, celiac lymphadenopathy. Lytic lesions L4&L5. Bx L3: Met pd adenoca. Based on the histopathologic features and the results of the immunostains, cholangiocarcinoma is regarded as the most likely primary. However, other possible primaries include pancreas, stomach, and (remotely) lung. Should primary be coded as C26.9, digestive organ, NOS?
Case 2 - CT: Mult liver masses. Liver Bx: Mod diff adenoca. The most likely primary sites include cholangiocarcinoma, stomach and pancreas. FDx per attending: Met adenocarcinoma to the liver, probably biliary origin. What primary site code do we use?
Case 3 - Admitting Dx: Unknown primary with mets to lungs, liver and cerebellar area. Liver Bx: Met adenoca. The combination of morphological and immunohistochemical staining favor a colon primary. However other possibilities include cholangiocarcinoma and pancreatic ca. Should we code site as C18.9 or C26.9? |
Code the primary site according to the physician's opinion. An ill-defined site code or an NOS code for the organ system is preferred over C809 [Unknown primary site] whenever possible. Code C809 only when there is not enough information to use an ill-defined or NOS code. Case 1 and Case 2 - Assign code C249 [Biliary tract, NOS]. Based on the available information, the physicians believe these are most likely biliary primaries. Case 3 - Assign code C189 [Colon]. According to the available information, the physician believes this is most likely a colon primary. |
2006 |
|
|
20250017 | SEER Manual/First Course Therapy--Neoadjuvant Therapy: How is Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect coded for bladder cancers? The College of American Pathologists (CAP) Protocol for the Examination of Cystectomy Specimens From Patients With Carcinoma of the Urinary Bladder does not provide a clear distinction between the SEER site-specific codes for Neoadjuvant Therapy Treatment Effect for All Other Schemas, codes 2, 3, and 4, as compared to the CAP Treatment Effect Post Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (BCG not included) categories. See Discussion. |
CAP Protocol for the Examination of Cystectomy Specimens From Patients With Carcinoma of the Urinary Bladder/Treatment Effect Post Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (BCG not included) selections o No known presurgical neoadjuvant therapy o Complete response: Absence of histologically identifiable residual cancer cells and extensive fibrosis of the tumor bed after presurgical neoadjuvant therapy (TRG1) o Strong response: Predominant fibrosis of the tumor bed, with residual cancer cells occupying less than 50% of this area (TRG2) o Weak or no response: Residual cancer cells occupying ≥50% of the tumor bed or absence of regressive changes (TRG3) o Other (specify): _________________ SEER Coding Instruction for Site-Specific Codes for Neoadjuvant Therapy Treatment Effect - Schemas: All Other Schemas selections 0 Neoadjuvant therapy not given/no known presurgical therapy 1 Complete pathological response Present: No viable cancer cells/no residual invasive carcinoma identified Residual in situ carcinoma only 2 Near complete pathological response Present: Single cells or rare small groups of invasive cancer cells 3 Partial or minimal pathological response Present: Residual invasive cancer with evident tumor regression, but more than single cells or rare small groups of cancer cells 4 Poor or no pathological response Absent: Extensive residual cancer with no evident tumor regression 6 Neoadjuvant therapy completed and surgical resection performed, response not documented or unknown Cannot be determined 7 Neoadjuvant therapy completed and planned surgical resection not performed 9 Unknown if neoadjuvant therapy performed Unknown if planned surgical procedure performed after completion of neoadjuvant therapy
Death Certificate only (DCO) |
Code Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect using the surgical pathology report only. Carefully review the pathology report gross description and comments to assist with assignment of codes. Review of neoadjuvant therapy data items is currently underway. |
2025 |
|
|
20230042 | First Course Treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Rectum: What surgery code should be used for laparoscopic C/T open low anterior resection with colorectal anastomosis, loop ileostomy in diagnosis year 2020, code 30 or 40? See Discussion. |
Can you provide clarification on Rectum primary surgical code 40 Pull through WITH sphincter preservation (colo-anal anastomosis)? Would this be code 30 or 40 due to the colorectal anastomosis? |
Assign code 40, Pull through WITH sphincter preservation (colo-anal anastomosis). The National Cancer Institute Dictionary of Cancer Terms defines coloanal anastomosis as a surgical procedure in which the colon is attached to the anus after the rectum has been removed. It is also called coloanal pull-through. |
2023 |
|
|
20020062 | Histology (Pre-2007): Can the histology code 8582/3, "thymoma, mixed type, malignant" only be used when you have a thymoma with both type A and type B features? See discussion. | Can this same histology be used when you have two type B features in the thymoma specimen? What code is used to represent the histology?
Example 1: Thymoma, spindle cell and epithelial type Example 2: Thymoma, mixed lymphocytic and epithelioid type |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
For example 1, code histology to 8582 [Thymoma, type AB]. This code is only applicable to "Type AB thymoma [mixed]" in the WHO classification. Use 8582 only for thymomas with type A and type B features. Spindle cell is a type A feature and epithelial is a type B3 feature.
For example 2, code histology to 8585 [Thymoma, type B3]. Lymphocytic is a B1 feature (8583) and epithelial is a B3 feature (8585). There is no type A component. Code the histology based on ICD-O-3 rule K on page 34.
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 |
|
|
20170040 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code for lung cancer case identified pathologically from a metastatic site that differs from the histology stated by the physician? See Discussion. |
Bronchial washings were negative. Four lymph nodes were biopsied and found to have metastatic poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma. The treating oncologist calls it small cell carcinoma, extensive stage, and treats patient with carboplatin and VP-16 (etoposide) The MP/H rule says to take path/cyto from a metastatic site if no pathology/cytology available from the primary site. Is the physician's statement and treatment taken into consideration here? |
Code the histology based on the pathology report from the lymph node biopsy for this case. Pathology has higher priority than a physician's statement for assigning histology code. Use text fields to document the physician's statement. |
2017 |
|
|
20150066 | Grade--Breast: Do you take grade from the most representative specimen along with the histology? What is the correct histology/grade combination? See discussion.
|
Breast biopsy (from hospital A): DCIS, solid, cribriform, comedo type, high nuclear grade
Breast Lumpectomy (from hospital B): DCIS, cribriform type, nuclear grade 1, tumor 2.5cm |
Assign 8201/2 for this case.
MP/H rules are to code histology based on the specimen with the most tumor tissue. That would be the lumpectomy in this case. The histology is DCIS, cribriform type.
Reference: http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/mphrules_instructions.pdf
The general rule for grade is to code the highest grade specified within the applicable grading system. For the case information provided, follow instruction #5, nuclear grade: use Coding for Solid Tumors #7: 2-, 3-, or 4- grade system. High nuclear grade (grade code 3 for breast) is higher than nuclear grade 1 (grade code 1).
Reference: http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/grade/ |
2015 |
|
|
20200045 | Diagnostic confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is Diagnostic Confirmation coded to 5 or 8 based on a patient diagnosed as multiple myeloma by a physician based on a bone marrow biopsy stating plasma cell neoplasm? See Discussion. |
Bone marrow, right iliac crest (aspirate smear, touch preparation, clot section and core biopsy): Hypercellular marrow (40-50%) with plasma cell neoplasm (see Comment): " No evidence of metastatic carcinoma. " Adequate iron storage. Comment: CBC data shows normocytic anemia. Flow cytometric analysis of bone marrow detects a kappa restricted plasma cell population that expresses CD138 and CD38. CD56 is positive. CD19 and CD20 are negative. T lymphocytes are immunophenotypically unremarkable. Polyclonal B lymphocytes are detected. Blast gate is not significantly increased. Immunohistochemical stains are performed on the biopsy core and clot section for greater sensitivity and further architectural assessment with adequate controls. CD138 positive plasma cells comprise > 70% of the total cellularity. AE1/AE3 is negative. Taken together, the morphologic and immunophenotypic findings are consistent with a diagnosis of plasma cell neoplasm. Trilineage hematopoietic activity as are seen. |
This would be a Diagnostic Confirmation of 8 based on the physician's diagnosis. The Pathology report mentions plasma cell neoplasm only. By itself, plasma cell neoplasm is not reportable because it includes a variety of diseases, some that are not reportable, and some that are (See Hematopoietic Database under Plasma Cell Neoplasm.) The physician probably has other information, including imaging, which may show lytic lesions. He/she is probably using clinical findings, plus findings from the bone marrow, and diagnosing this patient with multiple myeloma. |
2020 |
|
|
20061097 | Reportability--Lymphoma: Is a lymphoma diagnosed on a bone marrow biopsy reportable if the cytogenetics evaluation performed does not confirm the malignancy? See Discussion. |
Bone marrow Bx: Marginal zone lymphoma/leukemia. The morphology of the lymphoma/leukemia cells and the immunophenotypic characteristics identified by flow cytometry are consistent with marginal zone lymphoma/leukemia. Addendum Report: Cytogenetic evaluation revealed a 46,XY male karyotype. This is the normal male chromosome karyotype. Based on the limits of this methodology, no evidence of hematologic malignancy was observed in this specimen. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010: Yes, this case is reportable. The cytogenetic evaluation cited in the addendum report does not disprove the bone marrow biopsy diagnosis. 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. |
2006 |
|
|
20071022 | Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: If the bone marrow biopsy diagnosis is not reportable and cytogenetics studies indicate no clonal abnormality, is a case reportable if only the flow cytometry results show a "small monoclonal B-lymphocyte population consistent with a lymphoid component of a lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma or Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia"? See Discussion. | Bone marrow bx final diagnosis: Markedly hypercellular marrow consisting primarily of erythroid hyperplasia and, also, diffusely distributed small lymphocytes. Addendum comment: Flow cytometry demonstrated a small monoclonal B-lymphocyte population consistent with a lymphoid component of a lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma or Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia. Addendum comment: Cytogenetic analysis states no clonal abnormality was apparent. Normal female karyotype. Question 1: Is this case reportable, and if so, what histology? Question 2: Is there a hierarchy when flow cytometry and cytogenetics are done, but do not agree? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:This case is not reportable at this point. A lymphoid component is not equivalent to a diagnosis of a reportable disease. In order to be a malignant, reportable disease, the condition must be monoclonal and irreversible. Cytogenetics were negative for malignancy (i.e. no monoclonal abnormality identified which is the criteria used to establish this diagnosis). Use all information available when determining reportability. For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, 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. |
2007 |
An official website of the United States government
Government Funding Lapse
Because of a lapse in government funding, the information on this website may not be up to date, transactions submitted via the website may not be processed, and the agency may not be able to respond to inquiries until appropriations are enacted. The NIH Clinical Center (the research hospital of NIH) is open. For more details about its operating status, please visit cc.nih.gov. Updates regarding government operating status and resumption of normal operations can be found at OPM.gov.
