Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20110148 | First course treatment/Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be accessioned and how is treatment coded when follicular lymphoma diagnosed in December 2009 is treated with CHOP and a subsequent December 2010 diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma is treated with chemotherapy and a bone marrow transplant? See Discussion. | A follicular lymphoma [9690/3] involving multiple lymph nodes was diagnosed on 12/2/2009. The patient had no bone marrow involvement and was treated with CHOP as first course treatment. In October 2010, the patient was put on maintenance Rituxan but disease progression was noted in November 2010. A biopsy of a mesenteric lymph node in December 2010 showed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3]. The patient subsequently had chemotherapy and an autologous bone marrow transplant.
According to the Multiple Primaries Calculator in the Heme DB, the DLBCL is a new primary but the physician calls the diagnosis of DLBCL a transformation from the follicular lymphoma diagnosed in December 2009. |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case should be accessioned as two primaries: follicular lymphoma [9690/3] and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3] per Rule M10. Per Rule M10, abstract as multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm (follicular lymphoma) AND there is a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma) more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis.
Record the CHOP as the first course of treatment for the follicular lymphoma because this was the only treatment given for the chronic neoplasm (follicular lymphoma) prior to the transformation to the acute neoplasm (DLBCL). Record the chemotherapy and bone marrow transplant as first course treatment for the DLBCL.
As noted above, follicular lymphoma does transform to DLBCL. This "transformation" is actually a new disease. Follicular lymphoma is a disease in which the lymph nodes have a prominent follicular pattern; DLBCL is a disease with diffuse proliferation of large lymphoid cells. While it is true that follicular lymphoma will transform to DLBCL, this transformation indicates it becomes a different entity.
The DLBCL is coded as a second primary for several reasons: to determine the incidence of follicular lymphomas transforming to DLBCL; survival time can be calculated for the diagnosis of the more aggressive DLBCL; death will be attributed to the DLBCL (for mortality statistics) and not the follicular lymphoma
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 |
|
|
20110077 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be reported if different recurrence scores are found on the Oncotype Dx studies performed for multiple tumors in the same breast if the clinician states the patient has two primaries but the pathologist does not address the issue? See Discussion. | A patient has two separate lesions in the same quadrant with the same histology. According to the MP/H rules this is a single primary. However, Oncotype Dx studies were performed on both tumors and the DX recurrence was different for each tumor. The medical oncologist states the patient has two primaries. The pathologist does not indicate the number of primaries. | This is a single primary. The only rules used to determine the number of primaries are the MP/H rules for cases diagnosed 2007 or later. Do not use other information such as Oncotype Dx to determine the number of primaries for a patient. Oncotype is used to determine whether the cancer is likely to recur AND whether the cancer would benefit from chemotherapy.
The steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. Once in the manual, locate the Breast MP rules under one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text).
Start with the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M4. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module from Rule M4 to Rule M13. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.
The patient has two tumors in the same breast with the same histology. Abstract a single primary for this patient. |
2011 |
|
|
20110008 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Vulva: How is histology coded for VIN III with focal invasion? See Discussion. | Per SINQ 20000442, the histology for CIN III with microinvasion is coded to 8077 [squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III] per the matrix system rules, with a behavior code of /3 [malignant]. Coding the histology to 8077/3 per the matrix principle causes IF25_3 and MorphICDO3_P1 edits to fail. Flagging the first error resolves any reporting issue. How is the MorphICDO3_P1 edit resolved? | Assign 8076/3 [squamous cell carcinoma, microinvasive] for VIN III with focal invasion. This applies to all terminologies listed under 8077/2. The SINQ question from 2000 will be retired. | 2011 |
|
|
20110014 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Corpus Uteri: Which MP/H rule applies in coding histology for a "high grade endometrioid adenocarcinoma with squamous differentiation (adenosquamous carcinoma)"? See Discussion. | Is the pathology describing a specific histology, adenosquamous carcinoma [8560/3]? Or is this a combination/mixed histology code per rule H16? The Rule H16 instruction is to code a mixed histology code, 8323/3 [mixed cell adenocarcinoma] from Table 2 when two or more of the histologies are present (i.e., endometrioid and squamous in this case). | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Endometrioid adenocarcinoma with squamous differentiation is coded to 8570 [Adenocarcinoma with squamous metaplasia].
The following row needs to be added to Table 2 in order to be able to correctly use the MP/H rules to reach this conclusion.
Column 1: Endometrioid adenocarcinoma Column 2: Squamous metaplasia Squamous differentiation Column 3: Adenocarcinoma with squamous metaplasia Column 4: 8570
The change will be made in the next revision of the rules. |
2011 |
|
|
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 | |
|
|
20110048 | First course treatment--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is a "donor lymphocyte infusion" that is used in the treatment of CLL coded? | Donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) is coded as immunotherapy. The lymphocytes are donated by the same person who donated the original stem cell transplant. The lymphocyte infusion creates an immune response in which the T-cells are activated to attack the cancer cells.
See "Treatments" for CLL/SLL (9823/3) |
2011 | |
|
|
20110093 | Residence at dx: After living elsewhere (Florida) and traveling around the country in an RV with his spouse, is a patient a resident of this area for either primary if he was diagnosed with his first primary less than a month after arriving in the area and a second primary more than a year after parking his RV here? |
Use the patient's usual residence to determine residency. If the usual residence is not known or the information is not available, use the residence the patient specifies at the time of diagnosis. The SEER rules for determining "usual residence" match the rules used by the US Census Bureau. |
2011 | |
|
|
20100008 | Primary site--Bladder/Unknown & ill-defined sites: Should the coding of primary site be based on a molecular study when it is not verified by a clinical correlation? See Discussion. | Patient was seen in 2009 at Hospital A for bone pain and was found to have metastatic adenocarcinoma. A paraffin block specimen was sent to BioThernostics for THEROS CancerTYPE ID Molecular Cancer Classification Tests. The results came back with a 94% likelihood that the urinary bladder was the primary site. No scans were done on the abdomen or pelvis.
The patient was then sent to Hospital B for radiation to the bones and chemotherapy (Carboplatin and Taxol). The patient died within 6 months.
According to Hospital A, the primary site is bladder based on the molecular study report. Hospital B says this is an unknown primary. Which is correct? Do we take primary site from these tests, even when no clinical correlation is documented? |
Code primary site to bladder in this case. Code the known primary site when given the choice between a known primary site and an unknown primary site. | 2010 |
|
|
20100061 | MP/H Rules/Histology: The 2010 SEER Manual has omitted some useful information in the Histologic Type ICD-O-3 section, specifically the statement of "Do not revise or update the histology code based on subsequent recurrence(s)". Will this statement be added to the revisions of the MPH rules? See Discussion. | Example: A 2005 diagnosis of left breast lobular carcinoma [8520/3], followed by a 2009 diagnosis of left breast ductal carcinoma [8500/3]. Rule M10 states this is a single primary, but there is no information in the Histology rules (Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary) that the original histology should be retained, thus a person could potentially use these rules to change the original histology to 8522/3 [duct and lobular carcinoma] per rule H28. | We will reinstate the instruction not to change the histology code based on recurrence in future versions of the histology coding instructions. However, this instruction may not be applicable to all anatomic sites. It will be reinstated on a site-by-site basis. You may also refer to the instructions on Page 7 of the 2010 SEER Manual under the heading "Changing Information on the Abstract." | 2010 |
|
|
20100067 | MP/H Rules/Reportability--Ovary: Should an ovarian tumor with the histology of mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma be accessioned based on the presence of a foci of intraepithelial carcinoma? See Discussion. | The final diagnosis on the pathology report, "Omentum: mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma. Peritoneal fluid for cytology: neoplastic cells present; low grade serous neoplasm. Lymph nodes, right pelvic: one lymph node harboring implants of serous borderline tumor and endosalpingiosis within the subcapsular sinus. Bilateral fallopian tubes and ovaries: mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma involving ovarian surface and serosal surface of the tube. Detached fragment of borderline tumor within the tubal lumen. Uterus, cervix, and segment of colon: mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma involving parametrial and paracervical tissue, cul de sac, uterine and colonic serosa. Nine pericolonic lymph nodes negative for tumor. Stage III.
I&R # 45622 asked if a mucinous borderline tumor with intraepithelial carcinoma and focal microinvasion is reportable. The answer given on that site was that the case is not reportable. According to MPH, FORDS, and Collaborative Stage, intraepithelial carcinoma is in situ, behavior code 2, and is reportable. Has this changed? |
This case is reportable because there is a diagnosis of carcinoma (intraepithelial carcinoma). | 2010 |
An official website of the United States government
