SEER Inquiry System - Search

Bone marrow biopsy: Focal bone marrow involvement with B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder. Comment: This patient has 2 monoclonal proteins in serum, IgM kappa and IgG kappa clones. The marrow does have focal involvement with a small cell lymphoproliferative disorder. A lymphoplasmacytoid lymphoma is favored.

Flow Cytometry: Bone marrow reveals a low level, kappa-bearing-B-lymphoproliferative population that has an immunophenotype compatible with mantle cell lymphoma or related small, mature non-Hodgkin lymphoproliferative disorder.

Physician statement: lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma-Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia.

Per the Heme DB, the criteria to diagnosis WM is the serum paraprotein IgM. This patient's IgM was 6020 mg/dL. It was described as elevated per the physician. The physician also states the patient's IgG is elevated. According to the Heme DB, when both IgG and IgM are elevated it is indicative of LPL.

Bone marrow biopsy pathology states: Plasma Cell Neoplasm. The plasma cells are < 10%.

Subsequent to the bone marrow biopsy, the Discharge Summary indicated the patient has a diagnosis of myeloma, hypercalcemia and negative bone marrow surveys.

What date is used for the date of diagnosis?

Bone marrow biopsy and aspirate: Plasma cell dyscrasia with IgG kappa expression with FISH (+) for the following abnormalities: 3 copies of 1q21 (25/30 plasma cells) and an extra CCND1 signal (25/34 plasma cells) which is indicative of the presence of other chromosome 11 abnormalities possibly trisomy 11, a change known to occur in plasma cell neoplasms. Flow cytometry: A monoclonal plasma cell population is present, co-expressing cIgG, cKappa, CD56, & CD117 (up to 14% of analyzed cells).

Bilobectomy revealed two tumors, adenocarcinoma in the right middle lobe and bronchioalveoar carcinoma non-mucinous type in the right upper lobe. MP/H rule M10 states that tumors with non-small cell carcinoma (8046) and a more specific non-small cell type (chart 1) are a single primary. Does rule M10 apply to only those cases for which one tumor is stated to be non-small cell, NOS? Or do we use chart 1 to identify specific subtypes? For this case, using chart 1, would we note that bronchioalveolar is a subtype of adenocarcinoma and count this case as a single primary? Most of the MP/H rules schemas have a rule making an adenocarcinoma and a more specific type of adenocarcinoma a single primary. Would we apply rule M10 to this case and count it as a single primary? Or would we move on to rule M11 and count the case as two primaries?

Benign brain guidelines indicate that named tumors that have been assigned an ICD-O-3 code are reportable. However, per I&R: "Most cystic hygromas (9173/0) are fetal malformations and occur in patients less than two years old. If this patient was an adult, they are primarily treated with surgery. Hygroma (used in a general sense) is a response to trauma (i.e., subdural hematoma) and as such, is not a "new growth" and would not be reportable either as a cyst or as a neoplasm. Unless the patient had some sort of operation, I'd hesitate to include the case as a reportable benign tumor."

How is the cancer registrar to distinguish between reportable and non-reportable hygromas? Example: Brain MRI showed diffuse cerebral volume loss and incidental bilateral frontal subdural hygromas (histology code 9173/0).

Reference: I&R 14825

Because "evolving" melanoma was never reportable, this issue only relates to "early" melanoma.

Based on the Solid Tumor Rules, we would make this two since it is over one year. According to a previous SINQ question 20110046, we are to code this as one primary. We see patients come back with multiple carcinoid tumors over the years and would like clarification.

Based on the EOD General instructions for accessible sites, the following three requirements must be met

a.  There is no mention of regional lymph node involvement in the physical examination, pre-treatment diagnostic testing, or surgical exploration;

b.  The patient has localized disease;

c.  The patient receives what would be the standard treatment to the primary site (treatment appropriate to the stage of disease as determined by the physician), or patient is offered usual treatment but refuses it.

As a central registry, we receive a lot of melanoma path reports but never receive an abstract since the patients are seen at a dermatology office that does not report to the central registry. In these scenarios, we have both the diagnosis and wide excision or Mohs surgery from which we create a consolidated record. It is not often that lymph nodes are removed which indicates there were no palpable nodes.

Since the Breslow’s and Clark’s level allow for summary staging, is it possible to have central registry guidelines that allow for coding lymph nodes other than 999? The path reports meet two of the three criteria. Is there any new literature that supports coding lymph nodes 000 based on a Clark’s level or Breslow measure providing the patient has a wide excision?

A common scenario is a patient has a positive CT of the abdomen/pelvis for liver mass only. Biopsy of the liver mass is positive for cholangiocarcinoma. The physician is also calling the liver tumor the primary site with histology of cholangiocarcinoma. There is no evidence of intrahepatic bile duct (C221) or gallbladder (C240) involvement which are sites specific to this histology. The hematology/oncology consult stages this as Stage IIIA, T3N0M0 intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.  Can we code cholangiocarcinoma with site code C220 (liver) or should we assume that C221 (intrahepatic bile ducts) would be a better code to reflect this histology?  

Autopsy/Pathology Report (2020) excerpts

External Examination

Nervous System: There is an 8.5 cm mass located in the right thoracic paraspinal area.

Final Anatomic Diagnosis

Clinical History: Paraspinal mass suspicious for neuroblastic tumor (detected by imaging studies)

Nervous System: Right thoracic paraspinal neuroblastoma, poorly differentiated