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 18:44 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20100093

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries: Please clarify how rule M10 for Other Sites was developed and how a "recurrence" of the tumor after one year was determined to be a new primary? See Discussion.

What is the expected outcome or result of rule M10? Specifically, for soft tissue sarcomas, why is a recurrence after one year a new primary instead of a recurrence?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Rule M10, tumors occurring more than one year apart are multiple primaries, was developed to differentiate a new primary from a recurrence. The rule was developed with the concurrence of the CoC site-specialty physicians and the SEER consulting pathologist. There was agreement between all of the CoC site teams and the consulting pathologist that statements of recurrence should not be relied upon to rule out a new primary. The time limits for each site were set based on information from peer-reviewed articles on tumors occurring in the same site and studies using molecular studies to confirm whether or not the tumors were histologically similar. Determination of the time limit for the "other sites" rules was probably the most difficult because so many sites are involved. However, the specialty-physicians felt that one year was an appropriate length of time to apply to these sites.

 2010
20100067 MP/H Rules/Reportability--Ovary: Should an ovarian tumor with the histology of mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma be accessioned based on the presence of a foci of intraepithelial carcinoma? See Discussion.

The final diagnosis on the pathology report, "Omentum: mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma. Peritoneal fluid for cytology: neoplastic cells present; low grade serous neoplasm. Lymph nodes, right pelvic: one lymph node harboring implants of serous borderline tumor and endosalpingiosis within the subcapsular sinus. Bilateral fallopian tubes and ovaries: mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma involving ovarian surface and serosal surface of the tube. Detached fragment of borderline tumor within the tubal lumen. Uterus, cervix, and segment of colon: mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma involving parametrial and paracervical tissue, cul de sac, uterine and colonic serosa. Nine pericolonic lymph nodes negative for tumor. Stage III.

I&R # 45622 asked if a mucinous borderline tumor with intraepithelial carcinoma and focal microinvasion is reportable. The answer given on that site was that the case is not reportable. According to MPH, FORDS, and Collaborative Stage, intraepithelial carcinoma is in situ, behavior code 2, and is reportable. Has this changed?

This case is reportable because there is a diagnosis of carcinoma (intraepithelial carcinoma). 2010
20100098 Primary site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are these fields coded for a 2008 diagnosis of small B cell leukemia, most consistent with mantle cell leukemia that only involved the bone marrow? See Discussion. A bone marrow biopsy was done on 6/18/2008 and showed only small B cell leukemia, most consistent with mantle cell leukemia. ICD-O-3 does not list a histology code for small B cell leukemia or mantle cell leukemia.

Code the histology to 9673/3 [mantle cell lymphoma] and the primary site to C421 [bone marrow].

Mantle cell lymphoma can present in a leukemic phase. The only code available is for mantle cell lymphoma and the only primary site that could be coded would be bone marrow.

2010
20100082 Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should a case be accessioned as MDS, NOS when a consult uses ambiguous terminology (e.g., probable MDS) to describe the disease process and the bone marrow does not confirm the consult diagnosis? See Discussion. A patient is stated to have "probable MDS" by a hematology oncologist consult during an admission. A bone marrow biopsy was also performed during this admission, the final diagnosis on the pathology report is, "anemia and thrombocytopenia." The patient was not seen again by a hematology oncologist; however the patient's cardiology states, "BM biopsy was not clear whether this is MDS or another etiology."

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

This is not reportable. In effect, the original diagnosis was a rule/out MDS diagnosis. The bone marrow biopsy performed as part of the initial workup, proved that rule/out diagnosis was not valid. The subsequent statement confirms the diagnosis is not clear.

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
20100095

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Kidney, renal pelvis: In a patient who was never disease free because of multiple recurrences of invasive transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder originally diagnosed in 2004, is an invasive high grade urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis diagnosed in 2010 a new primary? See Discussion.

Patient has invasive TCC of the bladder diagnosed in 2004, and has never been disease free.

In 2/18/10 a left renal pelvis wash showed urothelial carcinoma, high grade.

On 4/7/10 a nephroureterectomy revealed high grade urothelial carcinoma with sarcomatous and squamous differentiation invading through pelvic wall and perihilar soft tissue.

Is this a new renal pelvis primary?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the renal pelvis is a new primary per rule M7. M7 will be better explained in the revised MP/H rules, but the rationale is that no field effect was present for more than 3 years. Although the bladder CA continued to recur, there were no other organs involved until 2010. M7 is intended to make the renal pelvis a new primary because there was no field effect (no organs other than bladder involved) for more than 3 years.

 2010
20100100 Primary site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are these fields coded for a Langerhans cell histiocytosis diagnosed on an excisional biopsy of the T8 vertebral bone? See Discussion. The patient had an excisional biopsy of the T8 vertebral bone, but no other tissue biopsy. The doctor confirms the case is malignant. However, Langerhans cell histiocytosis, NOS is listed as /1 (borderline) in the ICD-O-3.

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, do not use the ICD-O-3 book to determine the hematopoietic and lymphoid histology codes. Use the Hematopoietic Database and access it at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Code the histology to 9751/3 [Langerhans cell histiocytosis] and the primary site for unifocal disease to C412 [bone, vertebral column]. Per Rule PH 30, use the Heme DB to determine the primary site and histology when PH1-PH29 do not apply. Per the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB, lytic bone lesions are the most common primary site.

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
20100053 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is primary site coded for a myeloid sarcoma (granulocytic sarcoma) arising in the chest wall in a patient that has a negative bone marrow biopsy? See Discussion.

Patient was diagnosed with Myeloid Sarcoma (granulocytic sarcoma) by chest wall biopsy. This is an extramedullary manifestation of acute leukemia and is not in the bone marrow (bone marrow is negative).

How should primary site be coded? The Heme DB states that almost any part of the body can be involved. It also states to not code primary site to C421. In this case the only involvement is the chest wall [C493]. However, use of the primary site code C493 triggers an edit error questioning this site/histology combination. If the primary site is coded to C421 [bone marrow], there is no edit error. Please explain the site code and rationale.

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

Unless there are scans showing involvement of a lymph node or tissue other than the chest wall, the histology should be coded myeloid sarcoma [9930/3] and the primary site to C493 [soft tissue of chest wall]. Per Rule PH 30, use the Heme DB to determine primary site and histology when rules PH1-PH29 to not apply. Override the edit.

Per the Abstractor Notes section in Heme DB, for myeloid sarcoma [9930/3] the most frequently affected sites are skin, lymph nodes, gastrointestinal tract, soft tissue, and testis.

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
20100041

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Are "anemia of chronic disorders" or "hemolytic anemia" reportable given that a search of the Hematopoietic Database returns many different reportable conditions but no exact terminology match for either diagnosis? See Discussion.

Searching the Heme Database for the term ANEMIA OF CHRONIC DISORDERS yields 71 results. However, none of the results match the terminology entered, yet all 71 "matched terms" are reportable. Is this diagnosis reportable?

Another example is HEMOLYTIC ANEMIA. The search results showed 28 "matched terms" which are all reportable, but none are exact matches.

Please clarify how we should interpret the results of these searches when using the Heme Database.

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

Neither diagnosis is reportable. Anemia of chronic disorder or disease is seen when a patient has a chronic immune disorder or a malignancy; the anemia itself is not a malignancy. Hemolytic anemia can be caused by many conditions, but is not malignant.

The problem you are having using the Heme DB is that you are searching for the entire term such as "anemia of chronic disorder." The DB search engine is not the same as those used in Google or other widely used internet search engines. The words lymphoma, leukemia, etc. are so common in the DB that the traditional search is not effective.

In order to make your search easier, search on a unique word. For example, for "anemia of chronic disorder" search on the words (use the quotes) "anemia of" and for the term hemolytic anemia, search on "hemolytic" By using the unique word search you will cut down on the number of terms displayed. If you do get several terms, click on "Name" in the header and all of the results will be alphabetized for quick identification. You may also use the "diseases matching any term" or the "disease match all terms" options to narrow down the results when searching the whole term phrase.

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
20100044 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the primary site be coded to C499 [Blood vessels, NOS] for a case of intravascular large B cell lymphoma, Asian variant [9712/3] found in the bone marrow and liver? See Discussion. Patient has biopsy proven intravascular large B cell lymphoma, Asian variant, (9712/3) in bone marrow and liver. The Hematopoietic Database does not give a primary site code. Should the primary site be coded C49.9 because, by definition, this lymphoma arises in the blood vessels?

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

Code primary site to C499 [blood vessels]. The definition in the Heme DB does specify that this type of extranodal large B-cell lymphoma is characterized by lymphoma cells within the lumina of blood vessels with the exception of larger arteries and veins. The reason no primary site is specified is that Western variant can originate in the skin or CNS.

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
20100077 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Would it be correct to apply rule M5 for a recurrence and abstract a single primary when a patient has a history of Hodgkin disease diagnosed in 2005 followed by a diagnosis of "recurrent Hodgkin and EBV+ Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma" in 2010? See Discussion.

Does Rule M5 only apply if both diseases are present at the original diagnosis, or does it also take into account a recurrence of an old disease? The answer to this question makes a difference between stopping at rule M5 and abstracting as one disease, or going on to rule M15 to query the Hematopoietic Database to determine whether the patient has two separate primaries.

Example: Patient had Stage II Hodgkin disease in 2005 (all lymph nodes above diaphragm, supraclavicular LN biopsied at diagnosis), treated and patient achieved complete remission. In 2010, the patient is admitted for suspected recurrence. A supraclavicular lymph node biopsy showed, "Recurrent Hodgkin" AND "EBV+ Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma," both in the same lymph node. Applying rule M5, this is a single primary and states not to query the DB. However, this doesn't seem correct as it does not account for the new DLBCL.

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

You must first determine the histology codes for each occurrence of lymphoma. The 2005 diagnosis was stated to be Hodgkin disease (NOS) [9650/3]. The 2010 diagnosis was Hodgkin and EBV + diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (two histologies). Per Rule M5 the 2010 diagnosis is a single primary because the Hodgkin and the non-Hodgkin (DLBCL) were simultaneously present in the same lymph node. Per Rule PH14, a Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin simultaneously present in the same location should be coded to 9596/3 [B-cell lymphoma, unclassifiable].

Ultimately, there is a diagnosis of 9596/3 in 2010 that followed a diagnosis of 9650/3 in 2005. Per Rule M15, use the Multiple Primary Calculator to determine the number of primaries, which indicates the 9596/3 is a new 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. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

 2010