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: 08/04/2024 22:12 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20120094

Reportability: Given that per the 2012 SEER Manual and SINQ 20120081 VIN II-III is no longer reportable, does this change exclusively apply to VIN II-III or does it also apply to AIN II-III, VAIN II-III, etc.? See Discussion.

VIN II-III was a reportable condition in the past. There was a SINQ note to that effect which is now gone from the system. Would it be better to reactivate that note and put a date reference in it so that there is documentation available to confirm this disease (and other IN II-III diseases) was previously reportable? If the note is not reactivated, could there be some indication in SINQ 20120081 of the prior reportability of this disease process?

For cases diagnosed 2021 or later, VIN II-III is reportable. Similarly, AIN II-III, VAIN II-III, etc. are reportable. For cases diagnosed 2021 or later, the primary resource for reportability is ICD-O-3.2. Squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II is listed in ICD-O-3.2 as 8077/2 making it reportable. This applies to the various sites of intraepithelial neoplasia grade II including anus, vulva, and vagina.

 2012
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
20120002

Histology/Diagnostic confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are histology and diagnostic confirmation coded when a patient has a clinical diagnosis of lymphoma but a pathologic diagnosis of malignant neoplasm, NOS? See Discussion.

This patient had CT scans showing extensive bilateral retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy suspicious for lymphoma and left axillary lymphadenopathy. Thin core biopsies were done of the left axillary lymph nodes and immunohistology pathology was read as malignant neoplasm with extensive necrosis. Flow cytometry analysis of the sample shows no definitive or sufficient CD45+ events for informative analysis. Karyotype analysis could not be performed on this specimen due to inadequate sample. FISH analysis using IGH break apart probe showed no evidence of clonal rearrangement in limited number of cells available for analysis. The physician's diagnosis is probable lymphoma, no further workup felt necessary because patient would not tolerate chemotherapy anyway and hospice was felt most appropriate care for patient.

The definitive diagnostic method for lymphoma, NOS is histologic confirmation, but the only histologic confirmation was of "malignant neoplasm with extensive necrosis." Should the histology and diagnostic confirmation be coded as lymphoma, NOS [9590/3] and imaging without microscopic confirmation [7] or malignancy, NOS [8000/3] and positive histology [1]?

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

Code the histology to 9590/3 [malignant lymphoma, NOS] and the diagnostic confirmation to 7 [radiology and other imaging techniques without microscopic confirmation]. Per the Diagnostic Confirmation Coding Instructions for Heme and Lymphatic Neoplasms, use code 1 when ONLY the biopsy was used to diagnose the specific histology. The biopsy only confirmed a malignancy; the scan confirmed the specific diagnosis of lymphoma.

Note that a clinical diagnosis can be a definitive diagnostic method for malignant lymphoma, NOS. In this case, the biopsy was inadequate and a more specific diagnosis could not be made by histology. Because no further work-up was pursued, this NOS diagnosis of malignant lymphoma was a clinical diagnosis only.

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
20120068 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the correct histology code for a diagnosis of mature B cell leukemia/lymphoma diagnosed only on a peripheral blood smear?

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

Code the histology to 9591/3 [B-cell lymphoma, NOS].

After searching the Heme DB for the term , no B-cell leukemia/lymphoma NOS code is found. However, the diagnosis of B-cell lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma is found. This case scenario does not specify that this is a lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma; therefore, the histology code 9811/3 [B-cell lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma, NOS] cannot be applied.

A subsequent search of the Heme DB for the term returns "Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS" [9591/3]. Under the Alternative Names section of the Heme DB, B-cell lymphoma, NOS, is a synonym for Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS. Therefore, the B-cell lymphoma NOS code [9591/3] is the most appropriate histology code to use for this case.

This will be added to the next revision of the Heme DB and Manual.

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
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
20120081

Reportability: Is VIN II-III reportable?

For cases diagnosed 2021 and later

VIN II-III is reportable based on ICD-O-3.2 which lists squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II as 8077/2 making it reportable. Also see SINQ 20120094.

 2012
20120008

MP/H Rules/Recurrence--Ovary: How many primaries are accessioned if a patient was diagnosed with ovarian serous carcinoma four years ago and currently has sacral and pelvic masses positive for serous carcinoma on biopsy? Should this be disease progression or a new primary? See Discussion.

Should this be a new primary per the MP/H Rules (Other Sites, Rule M10) because the diagnoses were made more than one year apart? Or is the new disease metastasis? The pathologist did not compare the subsequent mass biopsies with the original pathology. Is a pathologist's comparison of slides the only criteria for determining recurrent disease? This case seems to fit the definition of metastatic disease rather than a recurrence, and therefore would not be a new primary.

Accession a single primary, the original ovarian serous carcinoma. The MP/H Rules do not apply to metastases.

Metastases: When cancer cells appear in other nodes or organs that are not the primary site they are metastatic cells. Discontinuous (separate from the primary tumor) masses or cells in regional lymph nodes, distant lymph nodes, or distant sites are always metastases. In this case, the sacral and pelvic masses are distant metastases. The pathologist does not have to compare cells to the original tumor slides; the discontinuous tumor mass/cells in any site other than the primary site are metastases.

Recurrence: For a disease to recur there are several criteria that must be met. First and most important, the patient must have had a disease-free interval (a tumor cannot recur if it has always been present). The other criteria are: the "new tumor" has to occur in the original primary site, it must be the same histology as the original tumor, AND must meet the timing requirements in the MPH rules for that organ/site.

 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
20120030

MP/H Rules/Histology- -Melanoma: What is the correct histology code if the final diagnosis for an excisional biopsy specimen is reported as "malignant melanoma, superficial spreading type" but the under the "cell type" section in the CAP protocol layout of the pathology report it lists "cell type: epithelioid"? See Discussion.

The MP/H rules do not address the concept of "cell type" for melanomas when the pathologist uses the CAP protocol to report findings and the cell type listed in that section of the report differs from the specific cell type mentioned in the final diagnosis. Does a case have two specific cell types when the final diagnosis and the "cell type" sections of a single pathology report indicate two more specific melanoma histologies?

Pre-2007 SINQ entries indicate the cell type should be coded. However, if it differs from the specific cell type listed in the final diagnosis does it matter? Do the MP/H rules still take the cell type into account?

Code the histology to malignant melanoma, superficial spreading type [8743/3] based on the final diagnosis. 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 melanoma primary, use the Melanoma Histology rules to determine the histology code because there are site specific rules for cutaneous melanomas.

Start at Rule H1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order from Rule H1 to Rule H10. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the applicable Module. Code the more specific histologic term when the diagnosis is melanoma, NOS [8720] with a single specific type (i.e., superficial spreading) mentioned in the final diagnosis.

The final diagnosis takes precedence over the CAP protocol. The CAP protocol may be used when it provides additional or noncontradictory information, but that does not apply in this case.

 2012
20120079 Reportability: Is positive urine cytology (ex: malignant cells interpreted as carcinoma) by itself reportable? If so, is the case coded to bladder by default or is is coded to C689, urinary system, NOS?

Urine cytology positive for malignancy is reportable. Code the primary site to C689 in the absence of any other information.

However, if a subsequent biopsy of a urinary site is negative, do not report the case.

For 2013 diagnoses and forward, report these cases when they are encountered. Do not implement new/additional casefinding methods to capture these cases.

As always, do not report cytology cases with ambiguous terminology.

2012