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: 04/25/2025 07:50 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20100039

Casefinding--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is the 2010 casefinding code of 289.6 (Familial Polycythemia) addressed anywhere in the Hematopoietic Database? See Discussion.

When you enter "familial polycythemia" into the Heme DM, polycythemia vera (PV) appears; however, the term "familial polycythemia" is not listed as one of the synonyms for PV.

Familial polycythemia by itself is not reportable. This is a benign condition which occurs within families. Familial polycythemia can progress to polycythemia vera (9950/3), which would then be reportable. The code, 289.6, which is the ICD-9-CM code for Familial polycythemia is not included on the reportable list for casefinding. There is only one ICD-9-CM code for Polycythemia vera, 238.4. "Familial polycythemia" is listed in Appendix F: Non-Reportable List for Hematopoietic Diseases.

2010
20100012 Date of diagnosis--Breast: How is the date of diagnosis coded when a mammogram describes only "suspicious calcifications" with a BIRADS category of 4 assigned and the suspicious calcifications are subsequently proven to be malignant on biopsy? See Discussion. The date of diagnosis is the date when cancer was first diagnosed by a recognized medical practitioner, whether clinically or microscopically confirmed. Ambiguous terminology used to determine reportability is listed in part I of FORDS pages 3-4. No BIRADS categories are included and, therefore, should not be used by the registrar to determine the earliest date of diagnosis. In addition, the term "suspicious for calcification" is not reportable, because calcification is benign condition, unless the physician describes it as malignant. Reference 46637, 12/29/2009 FORDS - In the last paragraph there is a statement that no BIRAD categories are listed...cannot be used to determine earliest date of diagnosis. Does the SEER Program follow this guideline? The date of diagnosis for this case is the date of the biopsy. There is no reportable diagnosis on the mammogram. 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
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
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
20100072 Histology/Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a diagnosis of follicular lymphoma in situ of the gallbladder reportable for 2010? See Discussion. Coding the histology to 9690 [Follicular lymphoma] with a behavior of 2 [in situ] causes many edits including SEER and CS edits to fail. According to the chief of pathology, this is a recently identified pathologic entity.

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

Currently, lymphoma in situ is not reportable. It is true that this is a recently identified pathologic entity. Our experts say that there is still some controversy to be ironed out regarding the criteria for identifying an in situ lymphoma. Their recommendation was to wait until clear guidelines had been established for the pathologists before we start collection of in situ lymphomas. We anticipate collecting these entities in the future.

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
20100068 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is this field coded for a JAK-2 positive myeloproliferative disorder, NOS, that is never specified as acute or chronic but was treated with Hydrea? See Discussion. The hematology oncologist referred to the case as a JAK-2 positive myeloproliferative disorder. It is never called acute or chronic. JAK-2 test was positive for mutation, and the bone marrow report indicates, "Morphological features can be seen in myeloproliferative neoplasm." Flow cytometry report indicates, "The flow data demonstrate neutrophilia with left shift. Lymphocytes are composed of a mixed population of T and B-cells with some atypical B-cells." The patient is subsequently treated with Hydrea.

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

Code the histology to 9975/3 [myeloproliferative/myelodysplastic neoplasm, unclassifiable] which is a new code implemented in 2010. Myeloproliferative disorder NOS is equivalent to myeloproliferative disease which is listed as a synonym for code 9975/3.

When the disease is diagnosed very early, it may manifest symptoms of two or more specific myeloproliferative neoplasms. As the disease progresses, it will manifest the symptoms of one of the specific MPN subtypes. When a more specific diagnosis becomes available, change the histology code to the more specific MPN code as directed in the PH rules. That is the scenario you describe. JAK-2 is positive, but the physician does not designate PV or ET. Hydrea is treatment for both PV and ET. In the future, the specific type of MPN may be diagnosed. In the interim, code the only diagnosis you have, MPN, NOS.

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
20100040 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is this field coded for a patient with a negative bone marrow and multiple plasmacytomas in different bone sites (e.g., thoracic vertebrae and left femur)?

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

Code the primary site to C419 [Bone, NOS] and the histology to 9731/3 [solitary plasmacytoms].

The vertebral lesions are common for plasmacytomas, as are lesions of the femur. If the patient does not meet the criteria of plasma cell myeloma/multiple myeloma (which is 20% of the leukocyte differential count), do not code the histology to multiple myeloma.

Per Rule M2, abstract a single primary when there is a single histology.

Per Rule PH3, code the primary site to the where the plasmacytoma originated and code the histology of bone () when the diagnosis is multiple plasmacytomas of the bone.

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
20100112 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is C448 [overlapping lesion of skin] or C449 [skin, NOS] the appropriate site code for a 2008 diagnosis of mycosis fungoides involving over 40 percent of the skin surface, including both upper and lower extremities and trunk? Code the primary site to C449 [skin, NOS]. The code C448 should be used when there is a single overlapping lesion that includes all the disease. The patient has extensive skin coverage involving multiple skin subsites (upper and lower extremities and the trunk), but it is unlikely there is ONE plaque (one lesion) overlapping all these different skin subsites. The disease has more likely presented as multiple plaques (lesions) in these different areas. 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