| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20130212 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a case reportable in which the pathology report is negative for plasmacytoma but a subsequent physician's clinical diagnosis is plasmacytoma? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case is reportable if the patient was treated for plasmacytoma. When the physician calls the case plasmacytoma and treats the patient accordingly, report the case.
See Case Reportability Instructions #6: Report the case when there is a clinical diagnosis (physician's statement) of a reportable hematopoietic or lymphoid neoplasm.
Note 1: The clinical diagnosis may be a final diagnosis found within the medical record or recorded on a scan (CT, MRI for example)
Note 2: Report the case even if the diagnostic tests are equivocal. A number of hematopoietic neoplasms are "diagnoses of exclusion" in which the diagnostic tests are equivocal and the physician makes the clinical diagnosis based on the equivocal tests and the clinical picture. See the Heme DB for definitive diagnostic methods for the specific neoplasm being abstracted.
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 | |
|
|
20130012 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: If topography codes C681-C689 are not included in Urinary Multiple Primary Rule M8, would a subsequent renal pelvis papillary transitional cell carcinoma be a new primary? See Discussion. |
The patient had a papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder and ureter diagnosed in 2010. The primary site was coded to C689 [urinary system, NOS]. The patient was diagnosed with a transitional cell carcinoma of the renal pelvis [C659] in 2012. In applying the MP/H rules to the 2012 diagnosis, rule M8 would be ignored because the primary site of the 2010 primary was coded to C689. The result is that M9 or M10 would be applied which indicates a new primary for the 2012 diagnosis. Should the 2012 renal pelvis carcinoma be a new primary? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession a single primary, papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder and ureter [C689, urinary system, NOS] diagnosed in 2010. The steps used to arrive at this decision are: Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). Go to the Urinary MP Rules because site specific rules exist for this primary. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. This patient has urothelial tumors in two or more of the listed sites (bladder, ureter and renal pelvis) diagnosed within 3 years. When C689 is assigned because tumors of the bladder and tumors of the ureter were determined to be a single primary and the site of origin is not known (as in this example), rule M8 is applied when a subsequent tumor is diagnosed in one of the listed sites. However, if site C689 [urinary system, NOS] was assigned for other unknown urinary primary site situations, rule M8 would not be used. Rule M8 was written specifically for urothelial tumors in the renal pelvis, ureter, bladder and urethra. Paraurethral gland [C681] and overlapping lesions of urinary organs [C688] do not belong in rule M8. We will add this issue to the list of possible revisions for the next edition of the MP/H Rules. |
2013 |
|
|
20130188 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is plasma cell neoplasm reportable? See Discussion. | A previously submitted question in 2012 stated this was reportable, but recent answers seem to indicate this is not reportable. Please clarify whether this is reportable or not. | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Plasma cell neoplasm is not reportable.
We apologize for the confusion that this has caused. The term "plasma cell neoplasm" was not included in the 2010 Heme DB and Manual. It was added to the 2012 Heme DB and Manual after repeated questions were received regarding this diagnosis. After further investigation, this term is being removed from the Manual and DB.
According to WHO, 'Plasma cell neoplasm' is an umbrella term that includes MGUS, plasma cell myeloma, solitary plasmacytoma of bone, immunoglobulin deposition diseases, extraosseous plasmacytoma, and osteosclerotic myeloma. Of these, only plasma cell myeloma, solitary plasmacytoma of bone, and extraosseous plasmacytoma are reportable. Physicians may use the term 'plasma cell neoplasm' when they are not sure what the specific disease is. Plasma cell neoplasm is not reportable; however, follow up on these types of patients is recommended because continued evaluation is likely to determine a more specific disease. A reportable neoplasm may be diagnosed at a later date.
Cases of plasma cell neoplasm diagnosed 2010 or later are not reportable. This change should not have taken place as a result of the update in the 2012 Manual. At this time SEER is not requiring registries to go back and review plasmacytoma or multiple myeloma cases that were collected based on this terminology.
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 |
|
|
20120019 | Surgery of Primary Site/Scope Regional LN Surgery--Breast: How are these fields coded for breast cases diagnosed 2011 and later when the patient has a simple mastectomy with removal of seven sentinel lymph nodes? See Discussion. | Per SINQ 20091076, the correct codes would be 41 [simple mastectomy] and 2 [sentinel lymph node biopsy only] when the patient has any number of sentinel nodes removed, as long as they are designated as sentinel nodes. Under the mastectomy codes in the 2011 SEER Manual, Appendix C, Breast Surgery Codes, the SEER Note states that code 41 [simple mastectomy] includes the removal of one to three axillary lymph nodes. A simple mastectomy with four or more axillary lymph nodes is coded to 51. Does the lymph node count for code 51 include both sentinel and axillary lymph nodes? Or does code 51 refer to strictly the count of axillary lymph nodes, separate from the count of sentinel lymph node(s) biopsied? | First, make sure that the seven lymph nodes removed were actually designated to be sentinel nodes and not a combination of sentinel nodes and other regional nodes. Code sentinel nodes only when the nodes are stated to be sentinel nodes or when the surgical procedure includes the injection of dye to identify sentinel nodes. If all seven nodes removed are sentinel nodes, follow the instructions in SINQ 20091076 and assign codes 41 [simple mastectomy] and 2 [sentinel lymph node biopsy only]. The SEER Note does not pertain to nodes designated as sentinel nodes. |
2012 |
|
|
20120057 | Reportability--Appendix: Is a low grade mucinous neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential with an in situ mucinous cystadenoma component reportable? See Discussion. | The patient was diagnosed with pseudomyxoma peritonei and the pathology report final diagnosis stated, "Low grade mucinous neoplasm, of uncertain malignant potential, involving a dilated appendix (5cm) with the following features: In situ mucinous cystadenoma component is identified, with low-grade cytology of neoplastic epithelium." Does the presence of an in situ component make this mucinous cystadenoma of the appendix reportable based on the ICD-O-3 matrix rule? | This diagnosis is not reportable. Cystadenoma is not reportable. The "in situ" description in this case does not make cystadenoma reportable.
According to our expert pathologist consultant, this is a "non-invasive, low grade, epithelial proliferation in an often cystic appendiceal tumor, 8480/1. If this has leaked or ruptured it can seed the peritoneal cavity causing pseudomyxoma peritonei." |
2012 |
|
|
20120049 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is polycythemia vera secondary to volume depletion reportable? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Secondary polycythemia vera is not reportable. See Appendix F.
Primary polycythemia vera is a condition in which there is an overproduction of blood cells due to a neoplastic process. Secondary polycythemia vera is an over production of red blood cells caused by a co-morbidity, in this case, volume depletion.
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 | |
|
|
20120024 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How many primaries are abstracted and what histology codes are used when a patient has two tumors, one reported as duct and lobular carcinoma and another reported as pleomorphic lobular and duct carcinoma? See Discussion. |
The pathology report indicated two tumors in the upper outer quadrant of the breast. One tumor has duct and lobular carcinoma and the other tumor has pleomorphic lobular and duct carcinoma. Per a web search, pleomorphic lobular carcinoma is a recently recognized subtype of lobular cancer. According to the MP/H Rules, Breast Equivalent Terms, Definitions, Tables and Illustrations, "pleomorphic carcinoma" is a specific type of duct carcinoma [8022/3]. This is not listed as a combined histology in Table 3. Should this be abstracted as a single primary per Rule M10, with the histology coded 8523/3 [infiltrating duct mixed with other types of carcinoma]? Or should this be abstracted as two primaries per Rule M12, with the histologies coded as 8022/3 [pleomorphic carcinoma] and 8522/3 [infiltrating duct and infiltrating lobular carcinoma]? |
This is a single primary with the histology coded as infiltrating duct and infiltrating lobular carcinoma [8522/3]. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the steps used to arrive at this decision are: Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a breast primary, start with the Breast Multiple Primary Rules because there are site specific rules for breast primaries. Start at Rule M4 because this patient has multiple tumors in the same breast. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the applicable Module. Abstract a single primary as tumors that are lobular [8520] and intraductal or duct are a single primary. Use the Breast Histology Coding Rules to determine the correct histology for these multiple tumors abstracted as a single primary. Start at Rule H20 as there were multiple tumors present but it is a single primary. Code the histology to 8522 [duct and lobular] when there is any combination of lobular [8520] and duct carcinoma. The Note for Rule M10 indicates Table 1 and Table 2 are used to identify specific intraductal and duct carcinomas. Referring to Table 2 (Duct 8500/3 and Specific Duct Carcinomas) note that pleomorphic carcinoma is listed as a specific type of duct carcinoma. Pleomorphic is a word that describes the cellular appearance rather than a specific histology. It is coded when that is the only description/diagnosis given (pleomorphic carcinoma/pleomorphic duct carcinoma). In this case, both duct and lobular are describing the actual histologic types. Ignore the term "pleomorphic" and code the actual histologic descriptors, ductal and lobular. We will make appropriate changes to the breast rules in the MP/H revisions so this distinction is clear. |
2012 |
|
|
20120067 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: How is the histology coded for a poorly differentiated thyroid carcinoma with rhabdoid phenotype arising in a papillary carcinoma? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology as papillary carcinoma, poorly differentiated [8260/33].
The WHO classification lists grade III papillary carcinoma as one of the synonyms for poorly differentiated thyroid carcinoma.
The steps used to arrive at this decision are: Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). Go to the Other Sites Histo rules because site specific rules have not been developed for this primary. Start with the SINGLE TUMOR: INVASIVE ONLY module, rule H8. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. Per rule H13 "phenotype" is not a term used to code a more specific histology. Moving to Rule H14 the histology is coded 8260/3 [papillary adenocarcinoma]. |
2012 | |
|
|
20120083 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a patient is diagnosed with follicular lymphoma, grade 3 in 2006 and is subsequently diagnosed with follicular lymphoma, grade 2 in 2011? See Discussion. | June 2006, the patient was diagnosed with follicular lymphoma, grade 3 by cervical lymph node biopsy and bone marrow biopsy. The patient refused treatment but was followed.
May 2007, the patient had another cervical LN biopsy with a diagnosis of follicular lymphoma, grade 2.
July, 2009, a neck mass excision was diagnosed as follicular lymphoma, grade 3.
June 2011, another neck lymph node was excised and diagnosed as follicular lymphoma, grade 2.
According to the MP calculator, FL grade 3 [9698/3] is a separate primary from FL grade 2 [9691/3]. Is the June 2011 diagnosis of FL grade 2 a new primary? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case should be accessioned as a single primary per Rule M15. The histology is coded to 9698/3 [follicular lymphoma, grade 3] diagnosed in 2006. The 2011 diagnosis of follicular lymphoma, grade 2 [9691/3] is not a new primary.
Follicular lymphoma, grade 2 [9691/3] is listed under the Same Primaries section of the Heme DB for 9698/3 [follicular lymphoma, grade 3]. To confirm this, Rule M15 indicates we are to use the Heme DB Multiple Primaries Calculator to determine the number of primaries because none of the rules from 1-14 apply. Per the calculator, these histologies represent the same 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. |
2012 |
|
|
20120010 | Multiple primaries/Behavior--Ovary: What is the diagnosis date and histology for the primary(ies) abstracted for a patient with a mucinous cystic borderline tumor of the ovary in 2003 and a metastatic ovarian adenocarcinoma in 2011? See Discussion. | The 2011 pathology report: Spine at L3 biopsy: metastatic adenocarcinoma. Per addendum: Prior total abdominal hysterectomy specimen from 2003 was reviewed and showed an ovarian mucinous cystic tumor of borderline malignancy which has a similar morphology to the invasive adenocarcinoma seen on current specimen.
Abdominal tissue and omental biopsy: invasive and non-invasive glandular implants compatible with origin from ovarian mucinous borderline tumor.
The final diagnosis per radiation oncologist was, "recurrent ovarian cancer." |
This is a single primary. The diagnosis date is coded to 2003 and the histology is mucinous cystadenocarcinoma [8470/3]. The bone, abdominal tissue and omentum are metastatic sites. The MP/H Rules do not apply to metastases.
This is a case where an invasive or microinvasive element was missed in the original pathology. Because the entire tumor was not sectioned and placed on slides, the pathologist used their expertise when sectioning and selecting tissue to be examined. It is not a matter of poor judgment, just a fact that it is impossible to review the tissue from the entire tumor. The behavior must be changed to malignant [/3]. |
2012 |
Home
