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 02:58 AM

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
20110006 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Are all stages of CLL reportable? See Discussion. If a physician notes the patient has Stage 0 CLL (increasing leukocytosis), is this reportable? CLL Stage is not mentioned in the Hematopoietic Manual or Database, but internet research reveals CLL has five stages (Stage 0, I, II, III, and IV).

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

Yes. All stages of CLL are reportable. CLL has a unique staging system. The Heme DB and Manual do not address the issue of stage. Therefore, stage information is not reported in the Abstractor Notes section of the Heme DB.

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
    		20110030 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: If and when did Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) become a reportable neoplasm? See Discussion. Per the Histiocytosis Association of America, "Over the years, cancer treatments have been used in patients with histiocytosis. Consequently, hematologists and oncologists, who treat cancer, also treat children with Langerhans cell histiocytosis. However, the disease is not cancer."

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

    Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) [9751/3] is reportable to all agencies starting for cases diagnosed 1/1/2010 and later. See Appendix D: New Histology Terms and Codes.

    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
    		20110149

    Ambiguous Terminology/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are the histology and diagnostic confirmation to be coded when the pathology report's final diagnosis is "plasma cell dyscrasia consistent with plasma cell myeloma" and the physician subsequently states this diagnosis was plasma cell myeloma? See Discussion.

    Pathologists often use the diagnosis "plasma cell dyscrasia" followed by an ambiguous term such as "consistent with" or "favors" with a more specific histology such as "plasma cell myeloma." Per initial training for Hematopoietic, ambiguous terminology is not used to code the histology for Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms. Should the histology be coded as plasma cell dyscrasia (which is not found in the Heme DB or Manual) because the pathology report uses ambiguous terminology to describe the plasma cell myeloma?

    If the physician subsequently states the diagnosis is "plasma cell myeloma" in a note following the pathology, should the histology be coded as plasma cell myeloma based on that diagnosis as there was no ambiguous terminology used?

    How is the diagnostic confirmation coded for this case? Should this be a positive histology diagnosis (diagnostic confirmation code 1) if the pathology diagnosis uses ambiguous terminology only?

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

    The histology is coded as Plasma cell myeloma [9732/3]. The diagnostic confirmation is coded to 1 [positive histology].

    Under the Definitive Diagnostic Methods section in the Heme DB it indicates that a bone marrow aspiration and bone marrow biopsy are procedures used to diagnose this disease process. This patient's diagnosis was based on the pathology (presumably from a bone marrow biopsy).

    NOTE: This is a reportable case. Ambiguous terminology is used to accession cases (determine reportability) because it has been used for over 30 years to do so. Any deviation from using ambiguous terminology to determine case reportability would cause the reporting of incidence counts to vary. In this case, there was a reportable, ambiguous terminology diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma on the pathology report; as well as a reportable physician's statement/diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma.

    Ambiguous terminology, however, is not used to report a more specific diagnosis for the Heme & Lymphoid neoplasms. For example, if the pathology report final diagnosis was "Myeloproliferative neoplasm, probably Polycythemia Vera" the histology would be coded as myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable [9975/3]. The ambiguous terminology indicates that the genetic testing, immunophenotyping, etc., probably are not complete or are not diagnostic of the more specific disease. Wait to code the histology until there is a definite diagnosis given.

    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
    		20110024 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded, and which MP/H rule applies for a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ with clear cell features? See Discussion.

    None of the histology rules for in situ breast seem to apply to this case:

    • Rule H3 doesn't seem to apply because "clear cell" is not a specific intraductal carcinoma.

  • Rule H6 doesn't seem to apply because there is not a combination of intraductal and 2 or more specific types of intraductal.

  • Rule H8 wouldn't apply because one of the types is intraductal.

    • For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    Code 8523/2 [intraductal carcinoma mixed with other types of in situ carcinoma]. Rule H6 should apply to this case.

    The wording in the Rule H6 needs to be clarified to handle a case of intraductal carcinoma with one or more subtypes that are not ductal. This will also require a modification to Table 3. A row needs to be added to the table labeled, "Intraductal and one or more of the histologies in Column 2." The Column 3 text for the newly added row would read, " Intraductal mixed with other types of carcinoma." The appropriate histology code to be reported per Column 4 would be 8523/2. This will be done in the next revision of the rules.

    		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
    		20110126 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be accessioned, and what rule applies, when the patient has a history of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma diagnosed in 2003, a follicular lymphoma diagnosed in 2009, and another diagnosis of follicular lymphoma in 2010? Is the application of the multiple primary rules effected if it is unknown whether the patient was ever disease free? See Discussion.

    Patient has a history of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma involving multiple lymph node regions (site C778) with bone marrow involvement diagnosed in 2003 and a history of follicular lymphoma confined to the thyroid and neck lymph nodes diagnosed in 2009. In 2010 the patient was diagnosed with follicular lymphoma in the inguinal and abdominal lymph nodes.

    The 2003 diagnosis of DLBCL and the 2009 diagnosis of follicular lymphoma are the same primary according to the 2009 rules, the Single Versus Subsequent Primaries Table.

    What rule is used to determine whether the 2010 diagnosis of follicular lymphoma represents a new primary? Which histologies are compared using the rules: the 2010 follicular lymphoma diagnosis to the 2009 follicular diagnosis or the 2010 follicular lymphoma diagnosis to the 2003 DLBCL diagnosis?

    This case should be accessioned as one primary.

    Reportability is determined by the year of diagnosis. The original DLBCL was diagnosed in 2003 and the follicular lymphoma in 2009. The pre-2010 rules are used for both cases. Per the Single Versus Subsequent Primaries Table, these are the same primary. It is reported with the histology 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma]

    Do not compare the DLBCL diagnosed in 2003 and the follicular lymphoma diagnosed in 2010 because the determination of the number of primaries for the two specific histologic types was done (as it should have been) using the rules in effect in 2009 when the follicular lymphoma was first diagnosed. The determination of a single or multiple primaries is made the first time the patient presents with the two different diseases; it is not changed when the same disease process reappears after 2010.

    		2011
    		20110066 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be accessioned for a patient with a history of CLL undergoing chemotherapy who is subsequently diagnosed on a liver biopsy with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (Richter transformation)?

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

    Abstract the diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (Richter transformation) as a second primary per Rule M10. Rule M10 states to abstract as multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm (CLL) AND there is a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm (the diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (Richter transformation)) more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis.

    "Richter transformation," also known as "Richter syndrome," is a term that indicates CLL has transformed to DLBCL. Richter syndrome is listed under the Alternate Names section in the Heme DB for DLBCL (9680/3).

    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
    		20110125 MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: What would the histology code be for a wedge bx of the left lung, lower lobe, that was read out as well differentiated adenocarcinoma with micropapillary features? Code papillary adenocarcinoma 8260/3. The ICD-O-3 codes for micropapillary have specific associations such as ductal, serous or transitional. None of those associations fit lung primaries. 2011