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: 11/14/2024 02:24 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
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
20100050

Reportability--Colon: Would a carcinoid tumor, NOS, of the appendix with perineural or angiolymphatic invasion be reportable if there is no mention of malignancy in the pathology report?

Carcinoid, NOS, of the appendix diagnosed in 2015 or later is reportable.

For cases diagnosed prior to 2015

Carcinoids of the appendix are reportable when they meet any of the following conditions.

  • The pathologist designates the carcinoid as malignant

  • Regional lymph nodes are positive for MALIGNANT carcinoid (not reportable if lymph nodes are reported to be involved with benign carcinoid disease)

  • There are discontinuous metastatic implants or involvement

    • Note that the implants/involvement must be designated as malignant. Many benign tumors will spawn implants that are also benign. If implants are benign, this is not a reportable tumor.

    		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
    		20100100 Primary site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are these fields coded for a Langerhans cell histiocytosis diagnosed on an excisional biopsy of the T8 vertebral bone? See Discussion. The patient had an excisional biopsy of the T8 vertebral bone, but no other tissue biopsy. The doctor confirms the case is malignant. However, Langerhans cell histiocytosis, NOS is listed as /1 (borderline) in the ICD-O-3.

    For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, do not use the ICD-O-3 book to determine the hematopoietic and lymphoid histology codes. Use the Hematopoietic Database and access it at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

    Code the histology to 9751/3 [Langerhans cell histiocytosis] and the primary site for unifocal disease to C412 [bone, vertebral column]. Per Rule PH 30, use the Heme DB to determine the primary site and histology when PH1-PH29 do not apply. Per the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB, lytic bone lesions are the most common primary site.

    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
    		20100074 Laterality--Melanoma: For a melanoma case, does the term "mid" imply that the tumor is in the midline when the site is the skin of back (trunk)? Yes. When the location is described as mid-back or mid-chest with no indication of left or right, assign laterality code 5 [midline]. 2010
    		20100066 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be accessioned if two tumors are present in the same breast, a 1.7 cm colloid carcinoma and a 1.5 cm colloid carcinoma with infiltrating ductal carcinoma? See Discussion.

    If a patient has two masses in the same breast with different histology codes and different sizes, should this be accessioned as two primaries? Or should this be a single primary based on the largest tumor size or numerically higher histology code?

    1. Size 1.7 cm for the largest tumor size, but histology is colloid carcinoma. Histology code: 8480/3.

  • Size: 1.5 cm with colloid with infiltrating ductal carcinoma. Histology code 8523/3.

    		•

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract this case as two primaries.

    Mucinous/colloid carcinoma of the breast is rare. The first tumor describes (1.7 cm) fits this criteria because the pathologist simply says mucinous carcinoma. The diagnostic criteria for mucinous carcinoma is that pools of extracellular mucin make up at least 1/3 of the volume throughout the tumor mass. If focal areas are not at least 33% mucinous, the designation is a mixed mucinous/ductal. That fits the second tumor (1.5 cm).

    For this case, you must get the histology codes for both tumors in order to use the Multiple Primary rules. Per H14 the first tumor is coded mucinous carcinoma [8480/3]. Per H17 the second tumor is coded duct carcinoma mixed with any other carcinoma [8523/3]. Now go to the MP rules. Per M12 abstract this case as multiple primaries because the ICD-O-3 histology codes are different at the second and third digit.

    		 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
    		20100014 Reportability: Are there criteria other than a pathologist or clinician's statement that a registrar can use to determine reportability of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST)? See Discussion.

    Per SINQ 20091021 and 20021151, GIST cases are not reportable unless they are stated to be malignant. A pathologist or clinician must confirm the diagnosis of cancer. There are cases that are not stated to be malignant in the pathology report or confirmed as such by a clinician; however, these cases do have information that for other primary sites would typically be taken into consideration when determining reportability. The final diagnosis on the pathology report for all 16 cases is "GIST." The additional comment(s) for each of the 16 different cases is reported below. Are any of the following cases reportable?

    1) Pathology report indicates that the bulk of the tumor is submucosal. It extends through the muscularis propria and abuts the serosa.

    2) Pathology report states tumor extends to serosal surface of transverse colon, but not into muscularis propria. CD 117 and CD 34 are positive.

    3) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades through the gastric wall to the serosal surface.

    4) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades pericolic fat tissue.

    5) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate omental caking.

    6) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate hepatic metastases. Hepatic metastases are not biopsied.

    7) Tumor stated to be unresectable and extends into pancreas. Chemotherapy given.

    8) Pathology report states tumor is low to intermediate grade and involves serosal (visceral peritoneum).

    9) Tumor size is 17.5 cm. Pathology report states "malignant risk".

    10) Pathology report states tumor "into muscularis propria" or tumor "involves muscularis propria" or "infiltrates into muscularis propria".

    11) Pathology report states, "high malignant potential; omentum inv by tumor." It is not stated in path report or final diagnosis to be malignant GIST.

    12) Pathology report states that tumor arises from wall of small bowel and extends into thin serosal surface.

    13) Pathology report states minimal invasion of lamina propria; does not penetrate muscularis propria.

    14) Pathology report states, "high mitotic activity >10/50 HPF; high risk for aggressive behavior; moderate malignant potential."

    15) Pathology report states tumor size is >5 cm. Intermediate risk for aggressive behavior; CD117+ KIT exon 11+.

    16) Pathology report states "high risk of malignancy."

    		 For GIST to be reportable, the final diagnosis on the pathology report must definitively state that the GIST is malignant, or invasive, or in situ. Case 6 is the only exception. It would be reportable assuming the scan actually states "hepatic metastases." Based only on the information provided, none of the other examples are reportable. The type of extension and/or invasion mentioned in the other examples are not sufficient to confirm malignancy. Borderline neoplasms can extend and invade, but do not metastasize. Only malignant neoplasms metastasize. 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
    		20100111 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is this field coded for a "myeloma, plasmablastic variant"?

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

    Code histology to 9732/3 [multiple myeloma]. The plasmablastic subtype/variant does have a prognostic indication, but the disease is still coded as multiple myeloma.

    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