Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20100035 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Colon: How many primaries are accessioned for a patient with two colon carcinomas in different segments of colon when there is no documentation that either tumor arose in a polyp, there is no statement indicating the presence of adenomatous polyposis coli and the resected pathology specimen indicates the presence of over 200 polyps? See Discussion. | The first MP/H rule that applies for this case is M4 [tumors in different segments of the colon]. Following rule M4, the case would be counted as two primaries and the histology would be coded per Rule H11. As these are multiple primaries, Rule H17 [Code 8220 (adenocarcinoma in adenomatous polyposis coli) when there are > 100 polyps identified in the specimen] would never apply, because H17 applies to multiple tumors abstracted as a single primary. However, Rule H17 seems to fit this case. Should Rule M3 be expanded to include a statement about > 100 polyps so these cases are not accessioned as multiple primaries?
Example: Total colectomy: 1) Distal tumor: - ulcerating moderately differentiated colonic adenocarcinoma, 3.2 cm in greatest dimension. Tumor invades through the muscularis propria into the subserosa (pt3). 2) Proximal tumor: exophytic moderately differentiated colonic adenocarcinoma, 2.9 cm in greatest dimension. Tumor invades submucosa (pt1). Multiple tubular adenomas present throughout the colon, approximate count greater than 200. |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule M3 for this case and abstract as a single primary. The case information makes it clear that this is adenomatous polyposis coli. Clarification will be added to rule M3 in the next revision of the rules. | 2010 |
|
|
20100037 | Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries should be accessioned for a patient diagnosed with essential thrombocythemia [9962/3] in 2002 who had a 2010 biopsy consistent with the fibrotic stage for a chronic myeloproliferative disorder that "suggests the patient is transforming to an acute myeloid leukemia"? See Discussion. |
Patient had a diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia [9962/3] in 2002 and was treated with Hydroxyurea. In 2010, the patient was admitted with severe bone pain and a diagnosis described as, "The overall features of the biopsy are consistent with a fibrotic stage of a chronic myeloproliferative disorder. The presence of up to 15% CD34+ immature cells seen in the biopsy suggests that the patient is transforming to an acute myeloid leukemia." In addition, cytogenetic studies and molecular testing for JAK2 were ordered. These findings confirmed a myeloproliferative disorder. JAK2 mutation was not detected. The patient died within 2 weeks. Is this a new primary?
Was this patient diagnosed with AML (which requires 20% or more blasts and this is only 15%)? If this is a new primary, is the histology 9861/3 [AML, NOS] or 9895/3 [AML with myelodysplasia-related changes]? Was the second diagnosis of AML definitively diagnosed? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case is a single primary, essential thrombocythemia [9962/3] in 2002. The 2010 diagnosis is chronic myeloproliferative disorder [9960/3].
According to Rule M15, the Multiple Primaries Calculator is to be used to first determine the number of primaries. Per the calculator, essential thrombocythemia and chronic myeloproliferative disorder are the same primary. (Acute myeloid leukemia is not used as the second histology because it is preceded by a non-reportable ambiguous term, "suggests." "Suggests" is not on the list of reportable ambiguous terms in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Coding Manual.
In 2010, this patient was in a late stage of ET. When any of the specific MPN neoplasms such as ET are in the late stage of disease, the characteristics of the specific disease (ET) will no longer be detectable. Accordingly, for this patient the diagnostic testing was positive for MPN, unclassifiable. In this case, do not change the diagnosis from the more specific disease (ET) to the NOS (MPN, unclassifiable).
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 |
|
|
20100024 | Histology: How is this field coded for a perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm (PEComa) of uncertain malignant potential that is malignant based on the presence of metastases? See Discussion. |
In 11/2006 the patient had surgery for a 6cm mass in the RUQ arising in the falciform ligament. The pathologic final diagnosis was: Perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm (PEComa) of uncertain malignant potential. In 10/2009 a liver biopsy showed metastatic perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm. |
Assign histology code 8005/3 [malignant clear cell tumor]. According to our expert pathology consultant, this is the best histology code available at this time for the occasional tumor which is designated as malignant. The appearance of metastatic disease clearly defines this case as malignant. |
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 |
|
|
20100044 | Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the primary site be coded to C499 [Blood vessels, NOS] for a case of intravascular large B cell lymphoma, Asian variant [9712/3] found in the bone marrow and liver? See Discussion. | Patient has biopsy proven intravascular large B cell lymphoma, Asian variant, (9712/3) in bone marrow and liver. The Hematopoietic Database does not give a primary site code. Should the primary site be coded C49.9 because, by definition, this lymphoma arises in the blood vessels? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code primary site to C499 [blood vessels]. The definition in the Heme DB does specify that this type of extranodal large B-cell lymphoma is characterized by lymphoma cells within the lumina of blood vessels with the exception of larger arteries and veins. The reason no primary site is specified is that Western variant can originate in the skin or CNS.
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 |
|
|
20100053 | Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is primary site coded for a myeloid sarcoma (granulocytic sarcoma) arising in the chest wall in a patient that has a negative bone marrow biopsy? See Discussion. | Patient was diagnosed with Myeloid Sarcoma (granulocytic sarcoma) by chest wall biopsy. This is an extramedullary manifestation of acute leukemia and is not in the bone marrow (bone marrow is negative).
How should primary site be coded? The Heme DB states that almost any part of the body can be involved. It also states to not code primary site to C421. In this case the only involvement is the chest wall [C493]. However, use of the primary site code C493 triggers an edit error questioning this site/histology combination. If the primary site is coded to C421 [bone marrow], there is no edit error. Please explain the site code and rationale. |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Unless there are scans showing involvement of a lymph node or tissue other than the chest wall, the histology should be coded myeloid sarcoma [9930/3] and the primary site to C493 [soft tissue of chest wall]. Per Rule PH 30, use the Heme DB to determine primary site and histology when rules PH1-PH29 to not apply. Override the edit.
Per the Abstractor Notes section in Heme DB, for myeloid sarcoma [9930/3] the most frequently affected sites are skin, lymph nodes, gastrointestinal tract, soft tissue, and testis.
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 |
|
|
20100071 | Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned for a patient diagnosed in February 2010 with a plasmacytoma of the frontal skull followed by a diagnosis of smoldering myeloma by bone marrow biopsy? See Discussion. | The patient had a diagnosis of solitary plasmacytoma of the right frontal skull in 2/2010 that was totally resected (the cranial specimen final diagnosis was plasmacytoma). The patient received radiation. While undergoing radiation, the patient was seen by a medical oncologist who did a bone marrow biopsy that revealed 10-15% plasma cells, and was called smoldering myeloma. Watchful waiting was recommended. In 8/2010, the patient had multiple lytic lesions and began systemic treatment.
Per rule M15 and the Multiple primary calculator, 9731/3 [plasmacytoma] and 9732/3 [smoldering myeloma] is accessioned as two primaries. When the manual states, "Use the Hematopoietic Database to determine the primary site and histology when PH1-PH29 do not apply," does this mean to use the calculator not the database itself? By the old rules this was one primary. Did this change for cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later? Which M rule is the correct rule to apply? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
The smoldering myeloma is a second primary per Rule M10. Accession as multiple primaries because this case was originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm (plasmacytoma)phase and there was a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm (multiple myeloma) more than 21 days after chronic diagnosis. See note 1 which indicates, "This is a change from previous rules." Note that the MP rules and the MP calculator in the Heme DB agree.
When the rules tell you to go to the DB to determine the histology and primary site, you use the DB information. (Don't forget to check the Abstractor Notes). The multiple primaries calculator is used to determine the number of primaries to abstract. Always use the M rules before using the MP calculator.
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 |
|
|
20100063 | Primary Site-Lung: Can you use a lung subsite code for a histologically confirmed lung primary when a CT scan indicates a sized mass located in one lobe of the lung as well as "too numerous to count nodules" through one or both lungs? See Discussion. | For example, chest CT shows "1.6 cm RUL suspicious mass and too numerous to count nodules throughout both lungs." Core biopsy of mass in the RUL compatible with adenocarcinoma. | For lung primaries with one large mass and numerous nodules, code the primary site to the subsite where the large mass is located. For your example, code the primary site to C341 [upper lobe of lung]. Note: This answer does NOT mean that the other nodules are primary or metastatic cancer. | 2010 |
|
|
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 |
An official website of the United States government
