System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 04/21/2026 23:05 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20110061

Primary site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the primary site and histology codes be updated when a patient with a history in 2005 of a bone marrow diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia later presents in 2010 with lymph node biopsy diagnosis of small B-cell lymphocytic leukemia?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Per Rule M2, this is a single primary because there is a single histology. Code histology to 9823/3 [CLL/SLL]/

The distinction of CLL vs. SLL cannot be made on bone marrow biopsy in isolation. The pathologist cannot make a diagnosis of CLL vs SLL without having peripheral blood counts available for review. If the patient was treated for CLL in the past, that may alter the peripheral counts seen in 2010 (e.g., lymphocytosis). The distinguishing feature is peripheral lymphocytosis in CLL (not seen in SLL). The disease looks the same and both will often have bone marrow involvement and lymph node involvement. If the patient had true CLL in 2005, then any subsequent lymph node (or other) biopsy consistent with CLL/SLL remains consistent with the original diagnosis of CLL. I would not change the original CLL code.

I agree with the previous response. We have to assume the 2005 diagnosis included a peripheral blood supporting that diagnosis. Otherwise, CLL and SLL look the same in nodes and marrow. The interplay between the two "diseases" is expected. This is why they are considered a single disease.

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
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.

  1. Thymomas are /1 and not reportable unless the pathologist states "malignant". This includes A, AB, B1, B2, and B3. Any one of these types of tumors may exhibit invasion but do not code /3 based only on invasion.

  • Code thymoma as /3 if specifically designated "malignant" by the pathologist.

  • Thymic carcinoma and any of its subtypes are malignant, /3.

    		•  2011
    		20110053 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned for a patient with a several month history of refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB), that may or may not have been treated, who now presents with a bone marrow biopsy that is compatible with acute myeloid leukemia?

    For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

    Per Rule M10, abstract multiple primaries 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. Two primaries should be accessioned for this case: refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB) [9983/3] (a chronic neoplasm), and acute myeloid leukemia [9861/3] (an acute neoplasm).

    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
    		20110095 Reportability/Histology: Is the diagnosis "low-grade neuroendocrine neoplasm/carcinoid tumor with expression of gastrin (consistent with gastrinoma)" reportable with the histology code 8240/3 [carcinoid] or 8153/3 [malignant gastrinoma]? See Discussion. A carcinoid tumor (8240/3) is reportable but a gastrinoma, NOS (8153/1) is not.

    Code histology to 8153/3 [malignant gastrinoma].

    According to the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Digestive System, pages 64-65, carcinoid is a synonym for gastric neuroendocrine tumor (NET) and gastrinoma is synonymous with gastrin-producing NET. Gastrin-producing NET (gastrinoma) is coded 8153/3.

    		2011
    		20110121 MP/H Rules/Histology--Esophagus: Will the AJCC TNM 7 having separate stage groupings for squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma result in coding histology for a tumor of mixed squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma to squamous cell carcinoma because it has the poorer prognosis? See Discussion.

    Per the CS Esophageal Schema, Note 4, there are now separate stage groupings for squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma. Should a tumor of mixed histopathologic type be classified as a squamous cell carcinoma?

    Do NOT use the Collaborative Stage Manual to determine the histology code. For CS STAGING purposes only, coding should be based on the squamous cell carcinoma component of this tumor.

    The Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual is the correct source for coding histology. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the following steps are used to determine the histology code:

    Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For an esophagus primary, use the Other Sites Histo rules to determine the histology code because esophagus does not have site specific rules.

    Start at Rule H8 because this is an invasive histology (assuming this is a single tumor). which states that one should code the appropriate combination/mixed code from Table 2 when there are multiple specific histologies.

    Find Other Sites for Table 2 under the Terms & Definitions section of manual.

    Locate the appropriate mixed code for squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma in column 1. Per column 3, the correct histology is adenosquamous carcinoma. Per column 4, the correct histology is 8560/3.

    		2011
    		20110058 Date of diagnosis/Flag: Will the Date of Diagnosis Flag ever be used if the instructions for coding Date of Diagnosis are followed? See Discussion.

    If an abstractor follows the instructions for coding the Date of Diagnosis and can at least estimate a year of diagnosis, in what scenario will the Flag be used?

    Per the 2010 SEER Manual,

    Page 49 Date of Diagnosis, second paragraph, "Regardless of the format, at least Year of diagnosis must be known or estimated. Year of diagnosis cannot be blank or unknown." The manual gives the following guidelines for coding diagnosis date/flag:

    Page 50, Coding Instructions:

    3. If no information about the date of diagnosis is available

    a. Use the date of admission as the date of diagnosis

    b. In the absence of an admission date, code the date of first treatment as the date of diagnosis.

    Page 51, Coding Instructions:

    9. Estimate the date of diagnosis if an exact date is not available. Use all information available to calculate the month and year of diagnosis.

    Page 53, Date of Diagnosis Flag, Coding Instructions:

    Always leave blank. Date of Diagnosis will always be a full or partial date recorded.

    		 The date of diagnosis flag should always be blank. 2011
    		20110096 Behavior--Lung: How is behavior to be coded for a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of a lung tumor that is further classified per the CAP protocol as, "non-mucinous bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma (adenocarcinoma in situ)" while the pathologist also classifies the tumor as pT1b, pN0? See Discussion. Is the following case coded with an invasive or in situ behavior when a RUL lobectomy specimen reveals adenocarcinoma and the Histologic Type per the CAP protocol layout is non-mucinous bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma (adenocarcinoma in situ)? The stage per the pathologist is pT1b, pN0. Per the COMMENT section in the pathology report, "The terminology adenocarcinoma in situ is based on a recent publication in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology (Volume 6, #2, February 2011). Based on this criterion, the behavior represents adenocarcinoma in situ with no evident invasive component." Code the behavior as in situ. The pathologist has the final say on the behavior of the tumor. This pathologist is indicating that in his opinion based on a recent publication, this tumor is in situ. 2011
    		20110003 MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: Which MP/H rule applies and what is the histology code for a "large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (arising in adenocarcinoma)"? See Discussion.

    Per the pathology report COMMENT section, "In addition to usual adenocarcinoma, a significant portion of this tumor displays features consistent with large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, an aggressive neoplasm which has a poorer prognosis than adenocarcinoma of comparable stage."

    Is histology coded to 8574/3 [adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation] for this case?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    Code histology to 8244/3 [composite carcinoid]. Rule H9 applies: Code 8244 [composite carcinoid] when the diagnosis is adenocarcinoma and carcinoid tumor. WHO describes these tumors as "mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma (MANEC)." They have components of adenocarcinoma mixed with high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC), which can be either small cell or large cell.

    The next version of the MP/H rules for colon will make this clear by adding a note regarding this issue to Rule H9.

    		2011
    		20110110

    MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Head & Neck: If a 1991 neuroesthesioblastoma [9522/3] of the nasal cavity has subsequent recurrences of the same histology but later "recurs" in 2008 with "sarcoma, NOS, high grade" on a biopsy and a "high grade fibrosarcomatous transformation of esthesioneuroblastoma" [8810/3] on resection, should the subsequent tumor be reported as a new primary if the clinician continues to refer to the tumor as a "recurrence"? See Discussion.

    Are histologic transformations always recurrences of the original tumor?

    Assuming the same primary site for the 2008 lesion, according to the current MP/H rules the high grade fibrosarcoma [8810/3] is a new primary per Head & Neck MPH rule 11 because it is a different histology.

    The revised MP/H rules will include tables to define tumors that de-differentiate (transform) and recur with what is seemingly a different histology. Although the rules will be changed in the future, we must use the rules in place at this time for this case.

    		 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