Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20120051 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What histology code for a diagnosis of pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology as lobular carcinoma, in situ [8520/2].
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 Breast Histo rules because site specific rules exist for this primary.
Start at the SINGLE TUMOR: IN SITU CARCINOMA ONLY module, Rule H1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order. Stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing. Code the histology to lobular carcinoma in situ [8520/2] because this is the only histologic type identified.
Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma is a variant of lobular carcinoma which does not have an ICD-O-3 code. It is still a lobular carcinoma. The identification of the variants of lobular carcinoma was a relatively recent discovery and the information was not available when the 2007 MP/H Rules were written. All of the lobular variants will be included in the next revision of the MP/H Rules. |
2012 | |
|
|
20120063 | Reportability--Pancreas: Are neuroendocrine "tumors" reportable and are they synonymous with neuroendocrine "carcinoma"? See Discussion. | Example: Pancreatic mass that probably represents a neuroendocrine tumor is staged as cT2N0M0. | According to the World Health Organization (WHO) pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NET) are malignant. They are reportable.
For pancreas primaries, code NET, G1 (well differentiated) to 8240/3; NET G2 (moderately differentiated) to 8249/3; and nonfunctional NET, GI or G2 to 8150/3. The histology code for neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) is 8246/3, large cell NEC is 8013/3 and small cell NEC is 8041/3. |
2012 |
|
|
20110135 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: Per SINQ 20110115, why is micropapillary adenocarcinoma of the lung coded to 8260 [papillary adenocarcinoma] rather than 8050 [papillary carcinoma]? |
The histology codes for lung tumors are based on the World Health Organization Classification of Lung Tumors. Chart 1 in the MP/H Lung Equivalent Terms, Definitions, Charts, Tables and Illustrations (2007 MP/H Rules Manual) illustrates the WHO Classification of Lung Tumors. Using Chart 1, note that papillary adenocarcinoma [8260] is located under the Adenocarcinoma (NOS) branch. The histology in question was stated to be "micropapillary adenocarcinoma" and not "papillary carcinoma." Papillary carcinoma, NOS [8050] is not actually located on the chart. However, papillary squamous cell carcinoma is listed under the Squamous Cell Carcinoma, NOS branch, histology code 8052. Next, look up papillary carcinoma [8050] in the Morphology - Numerical listing section of the ICD-O-3. Papillary carcinoma, NOS is a Squamous Cell Neoplasm. (Refer also to SINQ 20091040.) The key word used to determine the appropriate histology in this case is "adenocarcinoma." This is a papillary adenocarcinoma and not a papillary squamous neoplasm. |
2011 | |
|
|
20110040 | Reportability--Melanoma: Is a pathology report with a final diagnosis stating only non-reportable terms, followed by a re-excision pathology report that indicates "no residual melanoma" reportable? See Discussion. |
Is a case reportable if the final diagnosis on an initial pathology report states a non-reportable term (e.g., evolving melanoma, early/evolving melanoma or melanocytic nevus) and followed by a subsequent re-excision pathology report stating there is "No residual melanoma"? There is no mention in the clinical history on the subsequent pathology report that the diagnosis was thought to be melanoma following the first procedure. The first mention of the reportable term was in the final diagnosis of the subsequent pathology report that stated "no residual melanoma." |
No. This case is not reportable based on the information provided. "No residual melanoma" is not diagnostic of a reportable neoplasm. We recommend that you try to obtain more information from the clinician/pathologist for this case due to the poor documentation. Check for any additional resection performed. |
2011 |
|
|
20110155 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a patient shows evidence of "MDS as well as essential thrombocytosis and JAK2 mutation positive polycythemia vera" 18 years after a diagnosis of "thrombocytosis and probable polycythemia that progressed to probable myelofibrosis"? See Discussion | Per consultation: an 83 year old patient started on hydroxurea 18 years ago following a diagnosis of thrombocytosis and probable polycythemia. It appears the polycythemia progressed to probable myelofibrosis. The possibility of an MDS needs to be considered.
Problem list: Polycythemia with probable progression to myelofibrosis or MDS.
Bone marrow biopsy two weeks later shows some progression of dysmegakaryocytopoiesis. Patient has evidence of MDS, as well as essential thrombocytosis and JAK2 mutation positive polycythemia vera.
On follow-up visit six weeks later: Continue to manage patient with hydroxyurea.
An additional six months later: Diagnosis is polycythemia with thrombocytosis. |
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. Code the histology to 9920/3 [therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome].
The reportable diagnoses must first be separated from the non-reportable diagnoses mentioned in the consult. Thrombocytosis (NOS), polycythemia (NOS), and myelofibrosis (NOS) are not reportable terms. To verify this, look up each term in the Heme DB. No database matches list the preferred name or the alternative names as any of these NOS terms.
The reportable diagnoses are all from the post-bone marrow biopsy consult, "evidence of MDS, as well as essential thrombocytosis and JAK2 mutation positive polycythemia vera." The subsequent notes in the consult again only refer to this as non-reportable polycythemia (NOS) or thrombocytosis (NOS). Keep in mind that this patient has been undergoing treatment with chemotherapy (hydroxyurea) for many years for polycythemia (NOS); the patient was diagnosed with polycythemia, "about 18 years ago."
According to the Subject Matter Experts, as MDS progresses, it may manifest as several different subtypes, this is a part of the disease process and abstracting each subtype would result in over-reporting this disease. This patient has a complicated history. The consult information does not adequately document whether this patient's initial diagnosis of "polycythemia" was primary polycythemia (reportable) or a secondary polycythemia (not reportable). If the patient was initially diagnosed with a primary polycythemia 18 years ago the current diagnosis of "JAK2 mutation positive polycythemia vera" would not be a new primary. The manifestation of ET may be due to the progression of MDS. In either case, this patient does have a therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome which is the same primary as both PV and ET.
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 |
|
|
20110030 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: If and when did Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) become a reportable neoplasm? See Discussion. | Per the Histiocytosis Association of America, "Over the years, cancer treatments have been used in patients with histiocytosis. Consequently, hematologists and oncologists, who treat cancer, also treat children with Langerhans cell histiocytosis. However, the disease is not cancer." | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) [9751/3] is reportable to all agencies starting for cases diagnosed 1/1/2010 and later. See Appendix D: New Histology Terms and Codes.
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 |
|
|
20110149 | Ambiguous Terminology/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are the histology and diagnostic confirmation to be coded when the pathology report's final diagnosis is "plasma cell dyscrasia consistent with plasma cell myeloma" and the physician subsequently states this diagnosis was plasma cell myeloma? See Discussion. |
Pathologists often use the diagnosis "plasma cell dyscrasia" followed by an ambiguous term such as "consistent with" or "favors" with a more specific histology such as "plasma cell myeloma." Per initial training for Hematopoietic, ambiguous terminology is not used to code the histology for Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms. Should the histology be coded as plasma cell dyscrasia (which is not found in the Heme DB or Manual) because the pathology report uses ambiguous terminology to describe the plasma cell myeloma? If the physician subsequently states the diagnosis is "plasma cell myeloma" in a note following the pathology, should the histology be coded as plasma cell myeloma based on that diagnosis as there was no ambiguous terminology used? How is the diagnostic confirmation coded for this case? Should this be a positive histology diagnosis (diagnostic confirmation code 1) if the pathology diagnosis uses ambiguous terminology only? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph. The histology is coded as Plasma cell myeloma [9732/3]. The diagnostic confirmation is coded to 1 [positive histology]. Under the Definitive Diagnostic Methods section in the Heme DB it indicates that a bone marrow aspiration and bone marrow biopsy are procedures used to diagnose this disease process. This patient's diagnosis was based on the pathology (presumably from a bone marrow biopsy). NOTE: This is a reportable case. Ambiguous terminology is used to accession cases (determine reportability) because it has been used for over 30 years to do so. Any deviation from using ambiguous terminology to determine case reportability would cause the reporting of incidence counts to vary. In this case, there was a reportable, ambiguous terminology diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma on the pathology report; as well as a reportable physician's statement/diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma. Ambiguous terminology, however, is not used to report a more specific diagnosis for the Heme & Lymphoid neoplasms. For example, if the pathology report final diagnosis was "Myeloproliferative neoplasm, probably Polycythemia Vera" the histology would be coded as myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable [9975/3]. The ambiguous terminology indicates that the genetic testing, immunophenotyping, etc., probably are not complete or are not diagnostic of the more specific disease. Wait to code the histology until there is a definite diagnosis given. 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 |
|
|
20110012 | Reportability--Sarcoma: Is "atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma" reportable? See Discussion. | The final diagnosis for a soft tissue excision is, "atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma". The Comment section states, "Atypical lipomatous tumor/well differentiated liposarcoma has a significant risk for local recurrence, but no metastatic potential."
Per the 2010 SEER Manual, page 3, example 4: The pathologist makes the final decision about the behavior for a particular case. In this case, the pathologist uses both a reportable and a non-reportable term in the final diagnosis and in the comment section of the pathology report. Does the pathologist's comment impact the behavior and reportability of this tumor? |
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2014 and later: Atypical lipomatous tumor (8850/1) is not reportable. If the pathologist uses the term "well-differentiated liposarcoma" (8851/3) report the case. Use of this terminology indicates a less favorable prognosis. | 2011 |
|
|
20110038 | Reportability/Behavior: Is a "minimally invasive thymoma" a reportable malignancy if the pathology report does not specifically state it is malignant? See Discussion. |
For example, are Types A, B1, B2 and B3 reportable if the pathology report does not state the tumor is a "Malignant Thymoma"? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 2021 According to our expert pathologist consultant, code using the terms in the pathology report. Do not try to second guess the pathologist.
|
2011 |
|
|
20110088 | Chemotherapy/Neoadjuvant treatment: Should neoadjuvant chemotherapy be coded for an incidental second primary discovered at the time of surgery? If so, how is the diagnosis date coded? See Discussion. |
The patient had neoadjuvant chemotherapy for rectal carcinoma. An AP resection revealed an incidental second primary intramucosal carcinoma in adenomatous polyp in the descending colon. Is the chemotherapy coded as therapy for the intramucosal carcinoma of the descending colon? |
Record the neoadjuvant therapy only for the first primary and do not record the neoadjuvant therapy for the incidental new primary found on surgery. |
2011 |
An official website of the United States government
