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: 02/17/2026 14:22 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20110105 Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries should be reported for a bone marrow biopsy diagnosis of "lymphoproliferative disorder, small cell lymphocytic lymphoma/small cell lymphocytic leukemia consistent with marginal zone lymphoma"? According to our hematopoietic/lymphoid neoplasm physician expert, abstract one primary with the histology code 9699/3 [marginal zone lymphoma]. The pathologist is using the expression "small lymphocytic lymphoma" in a descriptive manner (marginal zone lymphoma is comprised of small lymphocytes) rather than in a "diagnostic" manner. 2011
20110138

First course treatment--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is first course of treatment when a patient received multiple different chemotherapy regimens before a complete remission for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma was achieved?

The patient was initially treated with involved field radiation and R-CHOP. The patient still had residual disease and the treatment was changed to RICE. Following RICE, there was still residual disease and the patient underwent another unspecified chemotherapy treatment. The patient was then transferred to a transplant center for pre-transplant chemotherapy and a bone marrow transplant. The patient achieved a complete response after transplant.

Should the R-CHOP and radiation be the first course treatment in a case like this, or would first course treatment include all chemotherapy and the transplant?

For hard-to-treat diseases such as DLBCL, the treatment plan outlined prior to treatment beginning may indicate, "The first course of treatment will be radiation and R-CHOP. If the R-CHOP does not achieve remission, we will use RICE." In other words, the first course treatment plan includes a second round of chemotherapy if the patient has not achieved a complete response after the R-CHOP and radiation. If the treatment plan was documented like this for the patient, the first course treatment includes R-CHOP, involved field radiation and RICE.

However, if there is no initial treatment plan in the medical record, all treatment provided after the date when "residual disease" or "failed to achieve remission" is documented in the medical record is either second or a subsequent course of therapy.

 2011
20110150 Ambiguous Terminology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: As ambiguous terminology is not used to code histology for Heme & Lymphoid primaries, how is the histology coded when a patient has a clinical diagnosis of "consistent with a myelodysplastic syndrome"? See Discussion.

The physician states the "patient's clinical picture certainly is most consistent with MDS." Several FISH probes were performed on peripheral blood, specifically looking for the 5q minus syndrome as well as other molecular rearrangements to suggest or confirm MDS. These studies came back as normal. The initial bone marrow also came back negative. The physician then states, "The suspicion was that this represented a myelodysplastic syndrome despite the normal cytogenetics. Additional studies performed on the date of the clinic visit included the FISH for the 5q minus syndrome as well as CD59 to exclude PNH. Both of these were negative. Therefore, at this juncture, the patient has a macrocytic anemia not yet requiring transfusion support with a normal white count and an elevated platelet count and a hypercellular bone marrow. This is certainly consistent with a myelodysplastic syndrome."

Per coding guidelines, ambiguous terminology is not used to code histology, only for reportability. What is the histology code for this case?

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

Code the histology as Myelodysplastic syndrome, unclassifiable [9989/3].

Ambiguous terminology is used to accession cases (determine reportability). While ambiguous terminology is generally not used to code a specific histology, it can be used to code histology if it is the .

The statement that you do not use ambiguous terms to code histology is intended for those NOS histologies with an ambiguous term being used to describe the subtype. For example, if the physician states this is a myelodysplastic syndrome, NOS, refractory thrombocytopenia. The correct histology would be MDS, NOS [9989/3] and not refractory thrombocytopenia [9992/3].

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
20110147 Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded when no bone marrow examination is performed but the peripheral blood flow cytometry listed several differential diagnoses and the physician states the diagnosis is small lymphocytic lymphoma? See Discussion.

The peripheral blood flow cytometry results state, "findings consistent with a small mature B-cell neoplasm, differential - marginal zone lymphoma, lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma, and atypical CLL." The physician states the diagnosis is "SLL." No bone marrow examination or CT scan was done to assess whether the patient had lymphadenopathy.

Per Rule PH5, if the diagnosis is B-cell CLL/SLL and peripheral blood is involved, the histology is coded to B-CLL/SLL [9823/3]. Should the primary site and histology be coded to bone marrow [C421] and CLL/SLL [9823/3] per Rule PH5 despite the physician's diagnosis of SLL [9670/3]?

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

This is a single primary and the primary site and histology is coded as bone marrow [C421] and CLL/SLL [9823/3]. The code 9670/3 [malignant lymphoma, small B lymphocytes, NOS] used for SLL is now obsolete.

Per the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB indicates that SLL is, "usually associated with CLL and coded CLL/SLL 9823/3. Small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) is almost identical to CLL. A somewhat arbitrary distinction is drawn between them based on the relative degree of marrow and nodal involvement and the numbers of circulating cells."

Per the Definition section in the Heme DB it states that, "CLL by definition involves blood and bone marrow at time of diagnosis." Check the PRIMARY SITE and MODULE RULE sections that indicate the primary site is C421, Rule PH5. Per this rule, code the primary site bone marrow (C421) and code the histology B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) [9823/3] when the diagnosis is B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) AND peripheral blood is involved (the bone marrow may also be involved).

This may appear to contradict the physician's diagnosis, but the 2008 WHO no longer codes CLL and SLL as separate neoplasms, rather one neoplasm, CLL/SLL, which reflects the actual neoplastic process. Those patients with SLL usually manifest CLL during the neoplastic process and those patients with CLL usually manifest SLL during the neoplastic process. WHO recommends coding to CLL/SLL rather than coding two primaries when the other neoplasm manifests.

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
20110070 MP/H Rules/Histology--Endometrium: How is histology coded when clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] is stated to involve a "1.5 cm endometrial polyp"? See Discussion.

The CAP formatted pathology report histology field states, "Clear cell adenocarcinoma, NOS 98310/3)" and the tumor size comment field states, "Carcinoma involves a 1.5 cm endometrial polyp." Does rule H11 apply? Is the histology coded to clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] because this is one histologic type identified in the CAP formatted histology field? Or should rule H12 apply and the histology coded as clear cell adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp [8210/3]? Or should we code the higher histology per rule H17 apply because clear cell adenocarcinoma and adenocarcinoma in a polyp are two specific histologies?

For colon primaries, whether or not the tumor arose in a polyp is quite important. Is this also the case for primaries listed in the Other Sites category?

Code histology to 8310/3 [clear cell adenocarcinoma]. 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 endometrial primary, use the Other Sites Histo rules to determine the histology code because endometrium does not have site specific rules.

Go to the SINGLE TUMOR: INVASIVE ONLY module, which starts at Rule H8.

. Code clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] because only one histologic type is identified.

2011
20110103 MP/H Rules/Histology/Ambiguous terminology: Can synonyms of listed terms, such as "variety" for the list termed "type," be used to code a more specific histology? See Discussion. The list of terms denoting a more specific histology does not include "variety." During MP/H training sessions there was an emphasis placed on only using terms listed to code a more specific histology. However, the results of an audit indicated that because "variety" is a synonym for "type" it could be used to code a more specific histology. Are synonyms of listed terms to be used to code histology? No. Synonyms of listed words used in the MP/H rules (e.g., "variety" for the listed term "type") cannot be used to designate a more specific histology. 2011
20110131 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Does a change in the 2008 diagnosis from refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB I) to a subsequent diagnosis of RAEB II in 2011 need to be reported to the state if the Hematopoietic Database indicates these diagnoses represent the same primary?

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

RAEB I and RAEB II [9983/3] have the same histology code per the Heme DB. They are synonyms. Per Rule M2 one abstracts a single primary when there is a single histology. There is no change to report to the state regarding histology.

The I and II designators indicate the number of blasts in the bone marrow. In RAEB, the number of blasts measures the severity of the disease and is also a predictor of the chance of a genetic transformation to AML.

In this case, the patient's disease has progressed to a more severe phase - similar to a solid tumor progressing from Stage II to Stage III.

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
20110123

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Are the terms EBV positive B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder with or without the term "of the elderly" and iatrogenic EBV positive lymphoproliferative disorder reportable? See Discussion.

The only reportable term listed is "EBV positive B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder of the elderly." Are the following cases reportable?

  • Does the diagnosis of EBV positive B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder specifically have to include the expression "of the elderly" to be reportable? Is there an age range associated with the term "of the elderly"?
  • Is "iatrogenic EBV positive lymphoproliferative disorder" reportable?
  • Is a diagnosis of "EBV positive B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder" reportable when there is no further classification of the LPD as lymphoma?

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

  1. EBV positive B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder is reportable. Code EBV positive lymphoproliferative disorder as DLBCL [9680/3], the term "of the elderly" does not have to be part of the diagnosis.
  • The term "iatrogenic" simply means that there is no known cause for the disease. Iatrogenic EBV positive lymphoproliferative disorder is reportable.
  • EBV positive B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder is a synonym for DLBCL [9680/3]. You do not need to have the lymphoma (DLBCL) diagnosis.

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
20110143

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many and what primary site(s) are to be accessioned when biopsies of clavicular and neck skin lesions are both consistent with mycosis fungoides? See Discussion.

Per the Heme DB and Manual, this is a single primary; however, per the MP/H Rules, this would be multiple primaries. Which rules apply to this case?

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

When there is a question of whether the SEER MP/H Rules or Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Rules apply, check the histology and refer to the Case Reportability Instructions in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Manual. All ICD-O-3 morphology codes in the range 9590 - 9992 are included in the Hematopoietic Rules. Mycosis Fungoides [9700/3] is included in this range. Therefore, the SEER MP/H Rules do not apply to mycosis fungoides.

This case should be accessioned as a single primary: mycosis fungoides [9700/3] of the skin, NOS [C449]. Per Rule M2 abstract a single primary when there is a single histology.

Note that in the Primary Site(s) section of the Heme DB, it states the primary site must always be coded to skin (C440 - C449) for mycosis fungoides. Because the primary site is stated in this section of the Heme DB, it is not necessary to use the Primary Site Rules to determine the primary site. Code the primary site to C449 [skin, NOS] because the patient has multiple sites of skin involvement and there is no documentation indicating which subsite of skin was the origin of the mycosis fungoides.

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
20110015 Primary site/Histology: Do the 4/1/09 changes in the ICD-O-3 Site/Type Validation table regarding the coding of primary site for intestinal type adenocarcinoma mean that the former valid site/histology combinations are now impossible and require review from a given diagnosis date forward? See Discussion.

Per the SEER Errata for ICD-O-3 Site/Type Validation List, April 1, 2009, adenocarcinoma, intestinal type, was removed as a valid site/histology combination for the following primary sites: C150-C155, C158-C159, C170-C173, C178-C179, C180-C189, C199, C209, C210-C212, C218.

  • Does this mean that these combinations cannot be used? If so, then why is an override allowed for these site/type combinations? Shouldn't these site/type combinations be added to the impossible site/type combinations table?

  • SINQ 20081085 states that "8144/3 will be removed from the valid site/histology list for large intestine, small intestine, and rectum." It appears from the Site/Type Validation table that a decision was made to also remove esophagus sites as a valid combination with histology code of 8144. Please explain the rationale.

  • Cases that were miscoded to 8144/3 will need to be identified for correction. What date of diagnosis should be the reference point used in making the necessary corrections related to this change? Do we only need to review cases diagnosed 1/1/2009 forward or should all cases be corrected regardless of date of diagnosis?

    • The site/type edit identifies unlikely combinations of primary site and histologic type.

  • Intestinal type adenocarcinoma occurs in the stomach. It would be rare in another primary site, but not impossible.

  • It was decided that all digestive organ sites, except stomach, would be removed from the list. That is why esophagus is not listed as a valid site.

  • The site/type edit is for all years. Cases for all years have to be reviewed for combinations of site and type that are no longer on the list. If it is documented in the medical record that the primary site and histology combination are valid, set the over-ride flag so that the case will not come up for review again.

    		• 2011