Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
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 |
|
|
20100012 | Date of diagnosis--Breast: How is the date of diagnosis coded when a mammogram describes only "suspicious calcifications" with a BIRADS category of 4 assigned and the suspicious calcifications are subsequently proven to be malignant on biopsy? See Discussion. | The date of diagnosis is the date when cancer was first diagnosed by a recognized medical practitioner, whether clinically or microscopically confirmed. Ambiguous terminology used to determine reportability is listed in part I of FORDS pages 3-4. No BIRADS categories are included and, therefore, should not be used by the registrar to determine the earliest date of diagnosis. In addition, the term "suspicious for calcification" is not reportable, because calcification is benign condition, unless the physician describes it as malignant. Reference 46637, 12/29/2009 FORDS - In the last paragraph there is a statement that no BIRAD categories are listed...cannot be used to determine earliest date of diagnosis. Does the SEER Program follow this guideline? | The date of diagnosis for this case is the date of the biopsy. There is no reportable diagnosis on the mammogram. | 2010 |
|
|
20100080 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is the term "thrombocytopenia" equivalent to the term "refractory thrombocytopenia" and should be a subsequent primary if it follows a treated diagnosis of pancreatic cancer? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph. Thrombocytopenia NOS is not a reportable diagnosis per Appendix F. Thrombocytopenia and Refractory Thrombocytopenia are not the same disease. Thrombocytopenia is caused by a decreased number of platelets in the blood. Non-malignant causes include disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), drug-induced non-immune thrombocytopenia, drug-induced immune thrombocytopenia, hypersplenism, immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, and infections of the bone marrow. 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 | |
|
|
20100054 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned if a pathology specimen reveals an infiltrating mammary carcinoma with mixed tubular and lobular features, 2.3 cm, low grade cribriform in situ ductal carcinoma, and Paget disease of the overlying skin with ulceration? See Discussion. | According to SINQ 20081134 the histology would be 8524 if this is one primary. | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is a single primary.
In order to determine whether this case represents a single or multiple primary, you must first determine the correct histology code for the underlying tumor. Using rule H9, ignore the DCIS.
See Table 3 in the equivalent terms and definitions. Infiltrating lobular, tubular, and Paget are coded to a single histology code (8524/3). Our current multiple primary rules do not say infiltrating lobular and tubular and Paget are a single primary. This was an omission and will be corrected in a future revision. Thank you for bringing this omission to our attention. |
2010 |
|
|
20100058 | Grade: Can the nuclear grade value be coded in the grade field for any site, or is it restricted to sites where it is specifically listed as an option in the coding manual, i.e., breast, kidney, urinary sites, etc.? | There is no restriction on sites for which nuclear grade can be coded in the grade field. If both differentiation and nuclear grade are specified, differentiation takes priority. | 2010 | |
|
|
20100013 | Reportability--Lymphoma: Should a December 2008 diagnosis of in situ follicular lymphoma be accessioned? See Discussion. |
Patient with mesenteric lymphadenopathy had a biopsy. Consult supports original pathology findings: The histologic and immunophenotypic findings represent what has been referred to in the literature as "in situ follicular lymphoma." The oncology assessment states, "At this point the patient has no other obvious evidence of other disease. ...no hepatosplenomegaly...no peripheral adenopathy...no significant abnormalities on PET scan to suggest active lymphoma." No treatment is planned at this time. The patient will only be monitored. |
Do not report in situ lymphoma at this time. Currently, lymphoma cannot be reported with a behavior code of in situ (/2) and it would be incorrect to abstract in situ lymphoma as a /3.
It is true that this is a recently identified pathologic entity. Our experts say that there is still some controversy to be ironed out regarding the criteria for identifying an in situ lymphoma. Their recommendation was to wait until clear guidelines had been established for the pathologists before we start collection of in situ lymphomas. We anticipate collecting these entities in the future. |
2010 |
|
|
20100019 | Histology--Ovary: How is histology coded for an ovarian mucinous neoplasm of low malignant potential (borderline mucinous cystadenoma) that shows extensive intraepithelial carcinoma and focal microinvasion? See Discussion. | At surgery a 25 cm left ovarian mass is found adherent to the anterior abdominal wall. The final diagnosis per the pathology report is, "Mucinous neoplasm (26 cm) of low malignant potential (borderline mucinous cystadenoma) with extensive intraepithelial ca and focal microinvasion. Right ovary, fallopian tubes, uterus, omentum, biopsies of diaphragm, 28 para-aortic and pelvic LNS and peritoneal fluid are all negative for malignancy." | Histology code 8470/3 [mucinous cystadenocarcinoma] is the best choice in this case. There is a mucinous cystadenoma [8470/0] with intraepithelial carcinoma and focal microinvasion. 8470/3 comes as close as possible to the description of the tumor. | 2010 |
|
|
20100043 | Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: When only pathology reports are available, how should the primary site be coded when a both a bone marrow biopsy and colon biopsy demonstrate "mantle cell lymphoma"? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
For this case, code primary site to C189 [colon, NOS] per Rule PH24.
Mantle cell lymphoma usually begins with lymph node involvement and spreads to other tissue. However, it can begin in a lymphocyte such as those in the GI tract. Per the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB, patients usually present with advanced disease. About half will have some combination of B symptoms. Swelling of lymph nodes and spleen are usually present. Bone marrow, liver and GI tract involvement occurs in a very high percentage
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 | |
|
|
20100024 | Histology: How is this field coded for a perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm (PEComa) of uncertain malignant potential that is malignant based on the presence of metastases? See Discussion. |
In 11/2006 the patient had surgery for a 6cm mass in the RUQ arising in the falciform ligament. The pathologic final diagnosis was: Perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm (PEComa) of uncertain malignant potential. In 10/2009 a liver biopsy showed metastatic perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm. |
Assign histology code 8005/3 [malignant clear cell tumor]. According to our expert pathology consultant, this is the best histology code available at this time for the occasional tumor which is designated as malignant. The appearance of metastatic disease clearly defines this case as malignant. |
2010 |
|
|
20100027 | Reportability: Is AIN III reportable if it arises in the perianal skin? See Discussion. | Physical exam states patient has a suspicious area of anal skin. Operative findings show a raised, suspicious lesion in the right perianal region. Our interpretation of the primary site would be skin and therefore not reportable. However, the final diagnosis on the pathology report indicates "AIN III/squamous cell carcinoma with focal areas suspicious for microinvasion. "SINQ #20041056 states that AIN III is reportable. | AIN III of the anus or anal canal (C210-C211) is reportable. AIN III (8077) arising in perianal skin (C445) is not reportable. | 2010 |
An official website of the United States government
