Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20100076 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: If not specified as primary, idiopathic, or essential, is thrombocytosis, NOS reportable? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Unless the disease is specified as primary, idiopathic, essential, or the physician states there is a myeloproliferative neoplasm, the term thrombocytosis, NOS is not reportable. Thrombocytosis, NOS, is the presence of high platelet counts in the blood. Thrombocytosis can be associated with chronic infections and other diseases as well as with myeloproliferative disease. Thrombocytosis, NOS is listed in Appendix F as a Non-Reportable Term.
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 | |
|
|
20100102 | Behavior--Breast: How is behavior coded when a biopsy shows in situ carcinoma with a focus suspicious for invasion and a subsequent excision/resection shows only in situ carcinoma? | Code this case as in situ. The specimen from the excision/resection is the more reliable source for determining behavior, compared to a biopsy, especially in this case where the behavior is ambiguous on the biopsy. | 2010 | |
|
|
20100105 | Surgery of Primary Site--Brain and CNS: Is "debulking" of a primary brain tumor coded to 21 [subtotal resection of tumor] or 30 [gross resection of tumor]? | Assign code 21 [subtotal resection of tumor, lesion, or mass]. Debulking removes as much of the tumor volume as possible in cases where it is not possible to remove the entire tumor. Debulking should improve the effectiveness of subsequent radiation therapy and/or chemotherapy. | 2010 | |
|
|
20100029 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Corpus uteri: How should histology be coded and how many primaries should be accessioned for an endometrial primary in which curettings showed malignant mixed mullerian tumor (carcinosarcoma) but hysterectomy specimen showed endometrioid adencarcinoma? See Discussion. | The pathology report COMMENT for the hysterectomy specimen stated that the previous curettage was reviewed. The findings are compatible with malignant mixed mullerian tumor. No residual features of malignant mixed mullerian tumor are found in the current resection, which shows FIGO grade I adenocarcinoma in the wall of the uterus. The malignant mixed Mullerian tumor appears to have been removed with the curettage. There is no information available regarding the number of tumors in these specimens. | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract a single primary. Rule M1 applies because there is no information on the number of tumors and there is no way to know whether the curettage sample was from a separate tumor or from the tumor in the hysterectomy specimen.
Apply rule H17 and code histology to 8980/3 for malignant mixed Mullerian tumor [Carcinosarcoma, NOS]. |
2010 |
|
|
20100083 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned for a patient with a longstanding history of follicular cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma followed by a 2010 diagnosis of "B-cell lymphoma with prominent large cell component, compatible with primary cutaneous follicle center cell lymphoma"? See Discussion. | Patient has a history of follicular cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma dating back to the 1990s. The patient was treated with chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation, radiation and rituximab. The patient had no evidence of recurrence. In April 2010 a lesion appeared on the side of the scalp above the left ear with a diagnosis of "B-cell lymphoma with prominent large cell component, compatible with primary cutaneous follicle center cell lymphoma." The oncology diagnosis is "primary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma."
Would the Multiple Primaries Calculator be used in this case? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Accession two primaries per Rule M15. Per the Multiple Primaries Calculator, primary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma [9597/3] following a diagnosis of follicular lymphoma, NOS [9690/3] is a new primary.
While the pathologic diagnosis was B-cell lymphoma "compatible with" primary cutaneous follicle center cell lymphoma and ambiguous terms cannot be used to identify a more specific histology, the physician confirmed the more specific diagnosis without ambiguous terminology. Therefore, this diagnosis should be coded.
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 |
|
|
20100025 | MP/H Rules/Primary site--Kidney, Renal Pelvis: Should the primary site be changed to C689 [Urinary system, NOS] for a primary renal pelvis tumor after additional tumors are found months later in different urinary sites (e.g., bladder or ureter) and the MP/H Rules indicate these are all the same primary? See Discussion. |
In a patient is diagnosed 1/29/08 with an invasive grade 3 of 3 papillary urothelial cell carcinoma arising in the depth of a calyx in mid portion of kidney, the primary site was coded C659 [Renal pelvis]. In 6/1/09 a TURBT showed three separate lesions on the right side of the bladder. The final diagnosis was high grade urothelial carcinoma in-situ with three tumors, the largest being 7mm. Per rule M8, the renal pelvis primary and subsequent bladder tumors are the same primary. Would the primary site be changed to C689 [Urinary system, NOS] when the bladder tumors were identified? Or is C689 only coded if more than one primary site is involved at diagnosis? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M8 applies. This is a single primary. The primary site was coded to C659 in 2008. Do not change the primary site code. |
2010 |
|
|
20100078 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How is histology coded for a diagnosis of squamous carcinoma and large cell undifferentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, apply rule H7 and code the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code, 8070/3 [Squamous cell carcinoma]. See Chart 1, the histology tree in lung equivalent terms. Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma is histology code 8013/3. The other histology is squamous carcinoma, 8070/3. 8070/3 is higher numerically than 8013/3. | 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 | |
|
|
20100110 | Reportability--Esophagus/Stomach: Are the terms "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" synonymous with in situ for tumors in the gastrointestinal tract? See Discussion. |
SINQ 20000245 states that high grade or severe dysplasia in not synonymous with in situ disease. However, per page 109 in the 7th edition of AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, high grade dysplasia is the only term listed under Tis. A note on that page explains that "high-grade dysplasia includes all noninvasive neoplastic epithelia that was formerly called carcinoma in situ, a diagnosis that is no longer used for columnar mucosae anywhere in the gastrointestinal tract."
There has been considerable pressure from registrars at larger reporting facilities to re-address this issue. The pathologists at these facilities state that they are correctly documenting the presence of in situ disease when they use the term high grade dysplasia for gastrointestinal tract tumors. In their opinion, it is not necessary to add the term in situ in parentheses following the use of the term high grade dysplasia to clarify the behavior of these lesions in their pathology reports. If the term "carcinoma in situ" is no longer being used by many pathologists for sites in the gastrointestinal tract, won't this lead to underreporting of in situ disease for these sites unless the reportability guidelines are changed? |
For cancer reporting purposes, the terms "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" are not synonymous with in situ for tumors in the gastrointestinal tract. These cases are only reportable when the pathologist documents carcinoma in situ or intraepithelial neoplasia grade III, or when the registry includes in their policies and procedures the pathologist's statement that he/she uses HGD to mean the same as CIS.
Reportability laws are customarily based on ICD-O. Because "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" are not designated as in situ in the ICD-O, there is no legal authority to report these cases in most states.
NAACCR is reviewing this issue. See #5 on page 11 of the December 1, 2013 NAACCR Implementation document, http://www.naaccr.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=u7d3sB71t5w%3d&tabid=126&mid=466 |
2010 |
|
|
20100036 | Behavior--Lung: Can an in situ behavior code be used for a bronchioalveolar carcinoma of the lung when the pathologist appears to use the term bronchioalveolar to describe an in situ pattern of growth exhibited by an adenocarcinoma? Is the use of the term "pattern" in this situation indicative of in situ tumor? See Discussion. | In ICD-O-3, bronchioloalveolar adenocarcinoma is described only by behavior code 3 (invasive). Would the behavior be coded as in situ for the following cases?
Example 1: Left lower lobe, partial resection shows bronchioloalveolar carcinoma with focal areas of fibrosis (see comment). Comment: Although the possibility that these areas represent stromal invasion can not be excluded, we favor the interpretation that these areas do not represent true invasion. Synoptic summary: Minimal pathologic stage: Local Extent.
Example 2: Lung tumor described as adenocarcinoma, predominantly bronchoalveolar pattern. For most sites, the term pattern is used only for in situ cancer and is not a specific term used for invasive tumors. Is the use of the term "pattern" in this situation indicative of in situ tumor? |
Code the behavior indicated in the pathology report. If the pathologist states the bronchioloalveolar carcinoma is in situ, apply the ICD-O-3 matrix rule and assign 8250/2. Otherwise, code 8250/3. Do not use the term "pattern" to infer in situ behavior.
Code behavior /3 for both examples based on information provided. |
2010 |
An official website of the United States government
