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: 08/30/2024 03:09 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
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
20100041

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Are "anemia of chronic disorders" or "hemolytic anemia" reportable given that a search of the Hematopoietic Database returns many different reportable conditions but no exact terminology match for either diagnosis? See Discussion.

Searching the Heme Database for the term ANEMIA OF CHRONIC DISORDERS yields 71 results. However, none of the results match the terminology entered, yet all 71 "matched terms" are reportable. Is this diagnosis reportable?

Another example is HEMOLYTIC ANEMIA. The search results showed 28 "matched terms" which are all reportable, but none are exact matches.

Please clarify how we should interpret the results of these searches when using the Heme Database.

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

Neither diagnosis is reportable. Anemia of chronic disorder or disease is seen when a patient has a chronic immune disorder or a malignancy; the anemia itself is not a malignancy. Hemolytic anemia can be caused by many conditions, but is not malignant.

The problem you are having using the Heme DB is that you are searching for the entire term such as "anemia of chronic disorder." The DB search engine is not the same as those used in Google or other widely used internet search engines. The words lymphoma, leukemia, etc. are so common in the DB that the traditional search is not effective.

In order to make your search easier, search on a unique word. For example, for "anemia of chronic disorder" search on the words (use the quotes) "anemia of" and for the term hemolytic anemia, search on "hemolytic" By using the unique word search you will cut down on the number of terms displayed. If you do get several terms, click on "Name" in the header and all of the results will be alphabetized for quick identification. You may also use the "diseases matching any term" or the "disease match all terms" options to narrow down the results when searching the whole term phrase.

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
20100096 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a 9/30/10 biopsy diagnoses follicular lymphoma, grade 1 and the patient is subsequently diagnosed on a 10/11/10 biopsy with large B-cell lymphoma which is stated to be a transformation of the prior lymphoma?

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

Per Rule M11, this case is to be accessioned as two primaries; follicular lymphoma, grade 1 [9695/3] and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) [9680/3]. The case represents a chronic neoplasm (follicular lymphoma, grade) and an acute neoplasm (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma) diagnosed within 21 days of one another and there is documentation of two biopsies, one confirming the chronic disease and the other confirming the acute 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.

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
20100002 Reportability/Histology--Colon: Is a colon tumor reportable if the pathology report final diagnosis is high grade dysplasia but CAP protocol histologic type designation is adenocarcinoma in situ? See Discussion. The microscopic description and the final diagnosis on the pathology report indicate the tumor is a large tubulovillous adenoma of the cecum with focal surface high grade dysplasia. The CAP protocol histologic type designation is adenocarcinoma in situ and pT designation is pTis. Which has priority? Is the case reportable?

The case is reportable because carcinoma in situ is stated. Carcinoma in situ has higher priority than severe dysplasia or high grade dysplasia.

Per AJCC 6th edition colon chapter, the terms "high grade dysplasia" or "severe dysplasia" may be synonymous with carcinoma in situ. Because the pathologist gave carcinoma in situ information within the CAP, (s)he is apparently defining the dysplasia as in situ carcinoma.

 2010
20100052 Reportability/Primary Site: What is the reportability status and primary site for a papillary carcinoma of thyroid tissue arising in an otherwise benign mature monodermal cystic teratoma (struma ovarii)? See Discussion. Final diagnosis on the pathology report states, "One ovary showing mature monodermal cystic teratoma composed of thyroid tissue (struma ovarii)." The pathology COMMENT section states, "There is a 0.1 cm focus of thyroid tissue within the struma ovarii showing cytologic features of papillary carcinoma. This finding is likely of no clinical consequence."

A papillary carcinoma of thyroid tissue in benign struma ovarii (mature cystic teratoma) is reportable.

These ovarian tumors contain a diversity of tissues including hair, teeth, bone, thyroid, etc. This reportable malignancy arose in thyroid tissue within the ovarian tumor. Code the primary site to ovary. Code to the actual organ in which the cancer arose. This will keep the case in the appropriate category for surgery coding, regional nodes, staging, etc.

2010
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
20100104 Grade--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is the phrase "aberrant T-cell expression" enough to code the grade field to T-cell when the final diagnosis on the pathology report is "AML with aberrant T-cell antigen expression"? Yes. Code grade to 5 [T-cell]. The T cell receptor, or TCR, is a molecule found on the surface of T lymphocytes (or T cells). 2010
20100101 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a 10/2010 diagnosis of accelerated phase of CML following a 4/2010 diagnosis of blast phase CML a new primary? See Discussion.

Patient was diagnosed in the blast phase of CML on a 4/2010 bone marrow biopsy. Pt failed Gleevec and progressed to the accelerated phase of CML in 10/2010.

Is this a single primary? This is not addressed in the hematopoietic rules. If this is a multiple primary, what rule should be applied?

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 only a single histology represented for this case.

Under the Alternate Names section in the Heme DB for chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), NOS [9863/3 and chronic myelogenous leukemia, BCR-ABL1 positive [9875/3] it indicates CML-blast phase, CML-accelerated phase and CML-chronic phase are all synonyms for CML, NOS. Any combination of these terms diagnosed represents one disease process. The Gleevec was given to prevent or delay progression to the accelerated phase.

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
20100010

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Ovary: How many primaries are to be abstracted when a patient is diagnosed with serous cystadenocarcinoma [8441] of the right ovary and clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310] of the left ovary? See Discussion.

Patient had bilateral ovarian tumors. The right ovary had serous cystadenocarcinoma and left ovary had clear cell adenocarcinoma. The pathology COMMENT section stated, "Based on the histologic differences of the tumors within each ovary, feel these represent two distinct separate primaries. Lymph node metastases are clearly serous ca." The physician staged the right ovary as T2a N1 M0 and left ovary as T1c N0 M0. Do we accession one primary per rule M7 [Bilateral epithelial tumors (8000-8799) of the ovary within 60 days are a single primary]?

What is intention of Rule M7? If the histology in each ovary is different but within the range (8000-8799), is that supposed to be accessioned as one primary? Or is the intention of Rule M7 that tumors in both ovaries must have the SAME histology within that histology range to be a single primary?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, apply rule M8 and abstract this case as multiple primaries.

Rule M7 does not apply when each ovary has a distinctly different histology, even when both histologies are with the specified code range. This clarification will be added to the next version of the rules.

 2010