Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20100047 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is "myelodysplasia" a reportable disease? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
The diagnosis of "myelodysplasia" is not reportable.
Myelodysplasia covers a group of disorders that result in the inability to produce enough healthy mature blood cells. Those disorders include: anemia, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, MDS, refractory anemia, refractory anemia with excess blasts in transformation, refractory anemia with ring sideroblasts, refractory anemia with excess blasts, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia. Follow-back to the physician is necessary to determine whether or not a particular case represents a malignancy.
"Myelodysplasia" is also listed in Appendix F: Non-Reportable List for Hematopoietic Diseases.
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 | |
|
|
20100095 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Kidney, renal pelvis: In a patient who was never disease free because of multiple recurrences of invasive transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder originally diagnosed in 2004, is an invasive high grade urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis diagnosed in 2010 a new primary? See Discussion. |
Patient has invasive TCC of the bladder diagnosed in 2004, and has never been disease free. In 2/18/10 a left renal pelvis wash showed urothelial carcinoma, high grade. On 4/7/10 a nephroureterectomy revealed high grade urothelial carcinoma with sarcomatous and squamous differentiation invading through pelvic wall and perihilar soft tissue. Is this a new renal pelvis primary? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the renal pelvis is a new primary per rule M7. M7 will be better explained in the revised MP/H rules, but the rationale is that no field effect was present for more than 3 years. Although the bladder CA continued to recur, there were no other organs involved until 2010. M7 is intended to make the renal pelvis a new primary because there was no field effect (no organs other than bladder involved) for more than 3 years. |
2010 |
|
|
20100028 | Primary site/Histology--Head & Neck: How are these fields coded when the final diagnosis for a skull based mass is "neuroendocrine carcinoma" and the IHC studies are incompatible with a brain/spinal cord primary (ependymoma)? See Discussion. |
The pathology report final diagnosis is, "skull base mass, biopsy: neuroendocrine carcinoma, see note. NOTE: Ancillary IHC studies reveal ...the IHC signature is incompatible with ependymoma. The constellation of findings is diagnostic of well differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma." The site/histology combination of C410 and 8246/3 is 'impossible' by SEER edits. There is no override. What is the correct primary site and histology? |
According to our subject matter expert physician, this unusual case is most likely a sino-nasal tumor (some variant of esthesioneuroblastoma [olfactory neuroblastoma]). Code to nasal cavity [C300] as indicated in ICD-O-3 by site-associated topography code attached to the morphology code for olfactory neuroblastoma [9522/3]. |
2010 |
|
|
20100058 | Grade: Can the nuclear grade value be coded in the grade field for any site, or is it restricted to sites where it is specifically listed as an option in the coding manual, i.e., breast, kidney, urinary sites, etc.? | There is no restriction on sites for which nuclear grade can be coded in the grade field. If both differentiation and nuclear grade are specified, differentiation takes priority. | 2010 | |
|
|
20100090 | MP/H Rules/Histology: How is histology coded for a diagnosis of "poorly differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma intermixed with osteoid sarcomatous component, consistent with malignant mixed mullerian tumor with heterologous (osteosarcoma) elements"? Is malignant mixed mullerian tumor synonymous with carcinosarcoma? See Discussion. | Given that there is no mixed code for these histologies, can the numerically higher code be used per H17 (malignant mixed mullerian tumor [8950/3]) using the logic of the MP/H rule for other sites? If so, should this histology be coded as 8980/3 [carcinosarcoma] rather than 8950/3 [malignant mixed mullerian tumor]? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code histology to 8980/3 [carcinosarcoma]. Recent literature states that carcinosarcoma is synonymous with mixed mullerian tumor. Mixed mullerian tumor is an obsolete term and should not be used. | 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 |
|
|
20100080 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is the term "thrombocytopenia" equivalent to the term "refractory thrombocytopenia" and should be a subsequent primary if it follows a treated diagnosis of pancreatic cancer? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph. Thrombocytopenia NOS is not a reportable diagnosis per Appendix F. Thrombocytopenia and Refractory Thrombocytopenia are not the same disease. Thrombocytopenia is caused by a decreased number of platelets in the blood. Non-malignant causes include disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), drug-induced non-immune thrombocytopenia, drug-induced immune thrombocytopenia, hypersplenism, immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, and infections of the bone marrow. 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 | |
|
|
20100082 | Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should a case be accessioned as MDS, NOS when a consult uses ambiguous terminology (e.g., probable MDS) to describe the disease process and the bone marrow does not confirm the consult diagnosis? See Discussion. | A patient is stated to have "probable MDS" by a hematology oncologist consult during an admission. A bone marrow biopsy was also performed during this admission, the final diagnosis on the pathology report is, "anemia and thrombocytopenia." The patient was not seen again by a hematology oncologist; however the patient's cardiology states, "BM biopsy was not clear whether this is MDS or another etiology." | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This is not reportable. In effect, the original diagnosis was a rule/out MDS diagnosis. The bone marrow biopsy performed as part of the initial workup, proved that rule/out diagnosis was not valid. The subsequent statement confirms the diagnosis is not clear.
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20100108 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: How is histology coded for a left occipital parietal area tumor stated to be a "low grade neuroectodermal neoplasm most consistent with neuronal tumor but lacking classic features of ganglioma" if the pathologist states the tumor is not malignant? | Code 9505/0 [Ganglioglioma, benign] is the best option according to our pathology expert. He states, "There recently has been a spate of tumors called low grade glio-neuronal tumors that are not PNETs and have no propensity to become malignant." | 2010 |
An official website of the United States government
