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: 04/28/2025 00:05 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20110043 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Which specimen should be used to code histology when a core biopsy revealed an unknown sized DCIS, comedo type and the partial mastectomy specimen showed only a 2mm focus of DCIS, solid pattern? See Discussion.

Should the histology be coded from the needle core biopsy or the partial mastectomy specimen? Patient had a needle core biopsy that revealed DCIS, comedo type, cribriform pattern, no tumor size given. Subsequently, the patient had a partial mastectomy which revealed DCIS, noncomedo type, solid pattern, largest focus of DCIS was 0.2cm.

Should the histology code be 8501/2 or 8230/2? The microscopic description on the partial mastectomy says that the previous core needle biopsy site revealed several foci of DCIS.

 Code the histology from the most representative specimen (the specimen with the MOST tumor tissue). Compare the size of tumor in the two specimens. If the tumor size is not available for both procedural specimens, code histology from the mastectomy specimen rather than the needle biopsy specimen. 2011
20110007 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Bladder: How many primaries are to be abstracted and how are the histologies coded when a bladder resection demonstrates tumor with invasive small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma [8041/3], high grade papillary urothelial carcinoma in situ [8130/2], adenocarcinoma in situ [8140/2], and multifocal flat urothelial carcinoma in situ? See Discussion.

Are the areas of in situ tumor to be ignored or would MP/H Rule M9 apply?

Ignore the in situ histologies. This is a single primary. Code the histology to invasive small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma [8041/3]. 2011
20110142

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is the pathologic final diagnosis of "follicular lymphoma, WHO grade 1-2, findings may represent in situ follicular lymphoma" reportable if the clinician also states this may be an "in situ follicular lymphoma"? See Discussion.

2/16/11 mesentery biopsy showed "follicular lymphoma, WHO grade 1-2, findings may represent an "in situ" follicular lymphoma."

3/7/11 clinician note stated, "nodularity of the mesentery which upon biopsy may be in situ follicular lymphoma. No treatment is necessary. This is not a proven malignancy. It may evolve into one. Plan 6 month follow-up and CT scans.

Do the notes from the oncologist and pathologist stating that this "may be" or "may represent" an in situ lymphoma make this case non-reportable?

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

This case should not be accessioned. In situ lymphoma is not reportable for any of the standard setters (CoC, NPCR, or SEER). In the Case Reportability Instructions, the NOTE under Rule 3 states, "Do report in situ (/2) lymphomas."

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
20110010

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a recently diagnosed granulocytic sarcoma followed by a diagnosis of AML two primaries? See Discussion.

6/10/10 Axillary lymph node biopsy was compatible with AML. The physician noted that the patient was diagnosed with granulocytic sarcoma [9930/3] in the axillary node.

6/15/10 Bone marrow biopsy compatible with AML FAB M1 [9873/3].

After induction, a second bone marrow biopsy on 6/30/10 shows persistent/refractory AML. The physician noted that the second biopsy is compatible with AML FAB M7 [9910/3].

Is the granulocytic sarcoma a chronic form of the disease? If so, do we have one primary diagnosed 6/10/10 with primary site coded to C42.1 and histology coded to 9873/3? Does the second biopsy on 6/30/10 represent the same primary even though the persistent disease is now FAB M7?

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

Granulocytic sarcoma does not transform into AML. Per the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB under the term "granulocytic sarcoma," it indicates that "Myeloid sarcoma (also known as granulocytic sarcoma) may occur de novo; it may precede or coincide with AML, or represent an acute blastic transformation of myelodysplastic syndromes." This means that when granulocytic/myeloid sarcoma is seen with AML, it represents a solid manifestation of the systemically involved AML. In other words, it is all the same disease process (coded to AML) if it occurs simultaneously (i.e., at the same time or within 21 days of on another).

Apply Rule M3 to this case which states to abstract a single primary when a sarcoma is diagnosed simultaneously or after a leukemia of the same lineage. Code the primary site to C421 [bone marrow] with histology coded to 9873/3 [acute myeloid leukemia, M1]. The FAB category is an older classification that is seldom used. Changes from FAB 1 to FAB 7 do not constitute 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.

 2011
20110051 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted when bilateral breasts are involved with MALT lymphoma and the bone marrow is negative?

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 mentioned. The histology is coded to 9699/3 [MALT lymphoma]. Code the primary site to C509 [breast] per Rule PH24 which states to code the primary site to the organ when lymphoma is present only in an organ.

Unless your software has edits that prevent coding laterality for lymphomas, code the laterality as bilateral. Up to half of extranodal, extragastric MALT lymphomas occur in multiple sites, particularly in paired sites (breast is an example).

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
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
20110004 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Which MP/H rule applies when coding the histology field for a tumor described as a "metaplastic carcinoma, adenosquamous and spindle cell type"? See Discussion.

Per path comment: "The neoplasm is composed of adenosquamous carcinoma which merges with spindle cell carcinoma. The cystic component shows a mixed squamous and ductal epithelial lining which shows cytologic atypia and mitotic activity and can be seen to merge with invasive carcinoma. The features suggest the possibility that the tumor may have arisen from a sclerosing and cystic papilloma with squamous metaplasia, although a clearly benign component is not evident."

Would MP/H rule H19 apply based on the pathology report comment resulting in histology for the case being coded to 8255 [adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes]? Or, would MP/H rule H14 apply based on the final diagnosis resulting in histology for the case being coded to 8575 [metaplastic carcinoma] because adenosquamous and spindle cell are not specific types of metaplastic carcinoma?

This is a metaplastic carcinoma as stated in the path diagnosis. Rule H14 applies. Assign code 8575/3. According to the WHO Classification, metaplastic carcinoma is a general term for a group of neoplasms characterized by a mixture of adenocarcinoma with dominant areas of spindle cell, squamous, and/or mesenchymal differentiation.

Use the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual for cases diagnosed 2007 or later to determine the histology for this case. Code histology to 8575/3 [metaplastic carcinoma] as stated in the pathology diagnosis.

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Breast Histo rules determine histology for the case.

Go to the SINGLE TUMOR: INVASIVE CARCINOMA ONLY module. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module from Rule H10 to Rule H19. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.

Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. According to the WHO Classification, metaplastic carcinoma is a general term for a group of neoplasms characterized by a mixture of adenocarcinoma with dominant areas of spindle cell, squamous, and/or mesenchymal differentiation.

2011
20110072 Multiplicity Counter/Date Multiple Tumors--Bladder: How are these fields coded when multiple tumors were present at the time of diagnosis and another tumor diagnosed a year later is determined to be the same primary? See Discussion. In November 2007, a nephroureterectomy showed an invasive TCC of the renal pelvis and a separate in situ TCC of the ureter. The Multiplicity Counter field is coded 02 and the Date Multiple Tumors is coded to November 2007. In December 2008, an in situ bladder tumor is found. Are the multiplicity fields to be updated to reflect the new bladder tumor?

Multiplicity Counter field was initially coded 02. Change the code to 03 because the subsequent, additional tumor was determined to be the same primary. Update the Multiplicity Counter field only once. If additional tumors are determined to be the same primary for this case, it is not necessary to update this field again.

Date of Multiple Tumors field was initially coded November 2007. Multiple tumors were present at the time of the initial diagnosis. Do not change the date of this field when additional tumors are subsequently diagnosed. This data item reflects the earliest date that multiple tumors were present. See example 2 under #3 on page 81 of the 2010 SEER manual.

2011
20110003 MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: Which MP/H rule applies and what is the histology code for a "large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (arising in adenocarcinoma)"? See Discussion.

Per the pathology report COMMENT section, "In addition to usual adenocarcinoma, a significant portion of this tumor displays features consistent with large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, an aggressive neoplasm which has a poorer prognosis than adenocarcinoma of comparable stage."

Is histology coded to 8574/3 [adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation] for this case?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Code histology to 8244/3 [composite carcinoid]. Rule H9 applies: Code 8244 [composite carcinoid] when the diagnosis is adenocarcinoma and carcinoid tumor. WHO describes these tumors as "mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma (MANEC)." They have components of adenocarcinoma mixed with high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC), which can be either small cell or large cell.

The next version of the MP/H rules for colon will make this clear by adding a note regarding this issue to Rule H9.

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