Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20250002 | Reportability/Histology--Soft Tissue: Is superficial CD34 positive fibroblastic tumor reportable and if so what histology code should be used? See Discussion. | Patient had a left thigh soft tissue mass excision on 7/24/24 and was diagnosed with superficial CD34 positive fibroblastic tumor. Margins were narrowly free of disease. Tumor size was 5.5 cm x 4.4 cm x 3.9 cm. The diagnosis was confirmed. |
Do not report superficial CD34-positive fibroblastic tumor (8810/1) of the thigh. WHO Classification of Soft Tissue and Bone Tumors, 5th ed., defines superficial CD34-positive fibroblastic tumor as a distinctive low-grade neoplasm of the skin and subcutis, most frequently occurring in the lower extremities, especially thigh, followed by arm, buttock, shoulder, and rarely, vulva. |
2025 |
|
|
20110132 | Reportability/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a diagnosis of "small B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoproliferative disorder" reportable? If so, how is the histology to be coded? See Discussion. | The final diagnosis of a bone marrow biopsy dated 10/99/2010 was "small B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoproliferative disorder." The differential diagnosis includes atypical small lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukemia and marginal zone lymphoma. Mantle cell lymphoma is very unlikely based on BCL1 negativity. Lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma is also excluded due to the absence of a plasma cell component (CD138 negative). | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Yes. The term "small B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoproliferative disorder" is reportable. Code the histology to 9591/3 [non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS] per Rule PH28. When there is a diagnosis of lymphoproliferative disorder and any lymphoma, code the lymphoma histology.
The information in the discussion is reflective of the difficulty in diagnosing hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. The differential diagnosis indicates that a number of possible specific lymphoma/leukemia diagnoses that have been ruled out, which explains why the final diagnosis is non-Hodgkin, NOS.
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. |
2011 |
|
|
20120038 | Reportability/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is Monoclonal B-lymphocytosis of uncertain significance (MLUS) reportable? If so, what is the correct histology code? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Appendix F, monoclonal B-lymphocytosis of uncertain significance (MLUS) is not reportable.
Some papers point out that a lymphocyte count less than five thousand is equivalent to monoclonal B-lymphocytosis of uncertain significance (MLUS) or monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL). A lymphocyte count of five to thirty thousand could be smoldering chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The diagnosis of MLUS is a benign process that does not meet the criteria for CLL.
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 | |
|
|
20100091 | Reportability/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned and how is histology coded when a patient has a history of chronic myelogenous leukemia diagnosed in 1997 and a "blast crisis with myeloid markers" of this disease in 2010? See Discussion. | The patient was initially diagnosed with CML in 1997. In February 2010 the disease went into a "blast crisis with myeloid markers." The patient received induction chemotherapy and the disease went back into a chronic phase. To capture the 2010 diagnosis of a blast crisis, is the histology code 9875/3 [chronic myelogenous leukemia, BCR/ABL1 positive] or 9861/3 [acute myeloid leukemia, NOS] used? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule M2, there is a single primary. Code histology to 9863/3 [CML, BCR-ABL1 status unknown, Blastic phase (BP)]. The blast phase is not recorded as a new primary because this disease does NOT change histologies.
Code 9875 [Chronic myelogenous leukemia, BCR-ABL1 positive] does not apply to the 2010 diagnosis because BCR/ABL status unknown. Code 9861/3 [Acute myeloid leukemia, NOS] also does not apply because the diagnosis was not acute.
It is not clear which chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) this patient has. Each CML is unique in that it has a blast phase without the histology itself changing. See the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB under any of the chronic myelogenous leukemias for a further explanation of this disease process.
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 |
|
|
20081040 | Reportability/Histology--Hematopoietic: If a JAK2 positive myeloproliferative disorder is reportable, how should histology be coded? | Please discuss the significance of JAK2 point mutation. Example: Bone marrow biopsy showed hypercellular marrow with increased megakaryocytes associated with JAK2 point mutation consistent with myeloproliferative syndrome. Path comment: While the morphologic changes would be compatible with a myeloproliferative syndrome, they are not specific for this as similar findings can be seen in reactive conditions. However, a molecular diagnostic test demonstrated a positive JAK2 point mutation which would support the diagnosis of myeloproliferative syndrome. In summary, the combined histologic and molecular diagnostic findings support a myeloproliferative syndrome. The differential diagnosis would be between polycythemia vera and essential thrombocythemia. Subsequent clinical diagnosis: polycythemia vera. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Follow the instructions in the SEER manual on pages 1-4 to determine reportability. Code the histology using all information available for the case. If the clinician reviews the case and states a particular histology based on his/her review, code that histology. The clinician has access to all of the information available for this case. He/she uses his/her expertise to form a clinical diagnosis. 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. |
2008 |
|
|
20031035 | Reportability/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: Does the presence of sideroblasts on a bone marrow biopsy confirm a diagnosis of refractory anemia with sideroblasts? | Final path diagnosis of bone marrow biopsy:
I. Hypercellular marrow for age with trilinear hyperplasia. II. Decreased iron stores with decreased sideroblasts.
Comment: Although the overall picture is not diagnostic of a specific entity, it is most consistent with an early stage myelodysplastic syndrome which would best be considered refractory anemia at this point.
In this case the percentage of sideroblasts is not stated. Would the path diagnosis of "decreased sideroblasts" along with the path comment of "refractory anemia" indicate that this case should be coded to 9982/3 [Refractory anemia with sideroblasts]? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
For the hematologic diseases, do not accession the case unless there is a definite positive diagnosis. A positive diagnosis, such as "Refractory anemia" must be stated in order to code that diagnosis. Other words associated with the positive diagnosis, such as "sideroblasts" are NOT to be used alone to assume a diagnosis.
Decreased sideroblasts does not make a diagnosis of Refractory anemia with sideroblasts. The sideroblasts for 9982/3 [Refractory anemia with sideroblasts] are characteristic in rings, and are INCREASED to make the diagnosis.
Based on the information provided, this case is not reportable. The final path diagnosis is not a reportable disease. The comment further states that the overall picture is not diagnostic of a specific entity. Therefore, it should not be reported at this point.
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. |
2003 |
|
|
20100002 | Reportability/Histology--Colon: Is a colon tumor reportable if the pathology report final diagnosis is high grade dysplasia but CAP protocol histologic type designation is adenocarcinoma in situ? See Discussion. | The microscopic description and the final diagnosis on the pathology report indicate the tumor is a large tubulovillous adenoma of the cecum with focal surface high grade dysplasia. The CAP protocol histologic type designation is adenocarcinoma in situ and pT designation is pTis. Which has priority? Is the case reportable? | The case is reportable because carcinoma in situ is stated. Carcinoma in situ has higher priority than severe dysplasia or high grade dysplasia. Per AJCC 6th edition colon chapter, the terms "high grade dysplasia" or "severe dysplasia" may be synonymous with carcinoma in situ. Because the pathologist gave carcinoma in situ information within the CAP, (s)he is apparently defining the dysplasia as in situ carcinoma. |
2010 |
|
|
20091081 | Reportability/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is an "inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor" reportable for Brain and CNS sites? See Discussion. | Histology code 8825/1 (Inflammatory Myofibroblastic Tumor) is not listed in the ICD-0-3 Primary Brain and CNS Site/Histology listing for reportable Brain/CNS tumors. | If the inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor is primary in one of the sites specified below and diagnosed 1/1/2004 or later, it is reportable.
Reportable brain and CNS tumors are any benign and borderline primary intracranial and CNS tumors with a behavior code of /0 or /1 in ICD-O-3 diagnosed 1/1/2004 and later, of the following sites:
|
2009 |
|
|
20021011 | Reportability/Histology (Pre-2007)/Behavior Code/Primary Site: How would you code these fields for a case in which an infant presents with a skin rash, enlarged spleen, palpable abdominal mass, inconclusive bone marrow biopsy and a skin biopsy that was positive for "Langerhans cell histiocytosis"? See discussion. | The pathologist states, "I would consider this case a malignancy, although it does not always behave as such. Lesions in babies often act in a malignant manner." | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
If the pathologist states this is a malignancy, the case is reportable. Code the Histology field to 9751/3 [Langerhans cell histiocytosis, NOS] and change the Behavior Code from 1 to 3. Code the Primary Site field to skin [C44._].
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 |
|
|
20021099 | Reportability/Histology (Pre-2007)--Pancreas: Are the following pancreatic tumors with mention of "low grade malignant potential/borderline" reportable to SEER? If so, what histology and behavior codes should be used? See discussion. | 1. AFIP diagnosis: Pancreas, tail, resection: Mucinous cystadenocarcinoma (mucinous cystic neoplasm) of low grade malignant potential. Comment: There are no reliable histomorphologic features which can separate these neoplasms into benign and malignant tumors, and so we consider them all to be low grade malignant tumors.
2. Whipple resection: Intraductal papillary mucinous tumor of the pancreas with extensive low grade and multifocal high grade ductal dysplasia (so-called borderline tumor and carcinoma in-situ). |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Both tumors are reportable to SEER.
1. Code the Histology and Behavior Code fields to 8470/3 [Mucinous cystadenocarcinoma, NOS].
2. Code the Histology and Behavior Code fields to 8453/2 [Intraductal papillary-mucinous carcinoma, non-invasive].
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 |
An official website of the United States government
