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: 07/17/2025 05:26 AM

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
20100038 Surgery of Primary Site--Prostate: Is a prostate saturation biopsy coded under diagnostic biopsy or surgery? A prostate saturation biopsy is a transperineal template-guided stereotactic saturation prostate biopsy that typically produces 30 to 80 core biopsies. This is an alternative biopsy technique used for some high-risk patients including men with persistently elevated PSA, those who have atypia on prior prostate biopsies, or men with biopsies showing high-grade prostate intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN). Although this is a different procedure, it is still a diagnostic biopsy. Do not code prostate saturation biopsy under Surgery of Primary Site. 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
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
20100076 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: If not specified as primary, idiopathic, or essential, is thrombocytosis, NOS reportable?

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

Unless the disease is specified as primary, idiopathic, essential, or the physician states there is a myeloproliferative neoplasm, the term thrombocytosis, NOS is not reportable. Thrombocytosis, NOS, is the presence of high platelet counts in the blood. Thrombocytosis can be associated with chronic infections and other diseases as well as with myeloproliferative disease. Thrombocytosis, NOS is listed in Appendix F as a Non-Reportable Term.

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
20100042

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Given that there appears to be many differences in the reportability of these case types pre- and post-2010 (e.g., [refractory] thrombocytopenia), is there a list available that gives the reportability dates for these diseases? See Discussion.

For cases diagnosed prior to 2010 "thrombocytopenia" was not reportable. According to the Heme Database, the term "refractory thrombocytopenia" is now reportable for cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later. It would be helpful to have a list of diagnosis date requirements for the different hematopoietic diseases.

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

Thrombocytopenia (NOS) is not reportable per Appendix F. However, the term "refractory thrombocytopenia" [9992/3] is reportable for cases diagnosed 2010 or later.

There has been no change in the reportability for thrombocytopenia. The hematopoietic "help" system lists all of the synonyms, variants, and abbreviations for diseases.

See the Hematopoietic & Lymphoid Neoplasm Coding Manual for changes in reportability associated with these cases.

 

  • Appendices D1a and D1b provide all of the new histology terms and codes.

  • Appendix D2 lists the newly reportable conditions.

    • Terms and codes in Appendix D are effective 01/01/10 and later. Refractory thrombocytopenia is included in D1a and D1b. The notes for D1a and D1b provide explanation and reiterate the dates these terms are effective.

    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
    		20100006

    MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Kidney: In a patient with a history of renal cell carcinoma, would a new primary be accessioned per Rule M10 for a soft tissue mass in the renal fossa not stated to be a metastasis but that was referred to as recurrent renal cell carcinoma, clear cell per the excision pathology report? See Discussion.

    This patient was diagnosed with clear cell carcinoma of the right kidney in 2003, treated with nephrectomy. The tumor was limited to the kidney. An FNA of the pancreas in 11/07 was consistent with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. In 2009 the patient was diagnosed with a right renal fossa mass by CT. The mass was excised on 8/26/09 and showed, "recurrent renal cell ca, clear cell." The path specimen was labeled as, "soft tissue, rt renal fossa." The original 2003 slides were not reviewed and the renal fossa mass was not described as being metastatic.

    If the renal fossa soft tissue mass is a new tumor, the MP/H rules for Other Sites directs you to code it as a new primary per rule M10 [Tumors diagnosed more than one (1) year apart are multiple primaries]. Would this be a new soft tissue tumor per rule M10? Or would this be a recurrence of the original kidney primary?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    This is not a new primary. The patient has metastatic disease from the 2003 kidney primary. Clear cell carcinoma metastasized to the pancreas in 2007 and to the right renal fossa in 2009.

    		 2010
    		20100046

    Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a clinical remission sufficient to change the tumor status to "disease free" for a patient on long-term chemotherapy for a diagnosis of either a chronic hematologic disease, such as CML, or a myeloproliferative disorder, such as essential thrombocythemia? See Discussion.

    For some patients with chronic hematologic diseases, the disease/recurrence status could change frequently as chemotherapy is started and stopped over an extended period of time. Should the tumor status for these cases always be "not disease free"? When the physician documents the patient is in clinical remission, does their status change to "NED or disease free?" There seems to be a lot of variation across the US in how registrars are coding this field. Clarification would be appreciated.

    The term "disease free" is not used in a standard fashion for hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms.

    Code the cancer status to free of disease when the physician indicates NED. For hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms, a physician's statement of NED, disease-free, clinical remission or no evidence of disease at this time, should be recorded with cancer status to disease free. The term "disease free" or NED means that there is no clinical evidence of disease.

    		2010
    		20100013

    Reportability--Lymphoma: Should a December 2008 diagnosis of in situ follicular lymphoma be accessioned? See Discussion.

    Patient with mesenteric lymphadenopathy had a biopsy. Consult supports original pathology findings: The histologic and immunophenotypic findings represent what has been referred to in the literature as "in situ follicular lymphoma." The oncology assessment states, "At this point the patient has no other obvious evidence of other disease. ...no hepatosplenomegaly...no peripheral adenopathy...no significant abnormalities on PET scan to suggest active lymphoma." No treatment is planned at this time. The patient will only be monitored.

    Do not report in situ lymphoma at this time. Currently, lymphoma cannot be reported with a behavior code of in situ (/2) and it would be incorrect to abstract in situ lymphoma as a /3.

    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.

    		2010
    		20100093

    MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries: Please clarify how rule M10 for Other Sites was developed and how a "recurrence" of the tumor after one year was determined to be a new primary? See Discussion.

    What is the expected outcome or result of rule M10? Specifically, for soft tissue sarcomas, why is a recurrence after one year a new primary instead of a recurrence?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Rule M10, tumors occurring more than one year apart are multiple primaries, was developed to differentiate a new primary from a recurrence. The rule was developed with the concurrence of the CoC site-specialty physicians and the SEER consulting pathologist. There was agreement between all of the CoC site teams and the consulting pathologist that statements of recurrence should not be relied upon to rule out a new primary. The time limits for each site were set based on information from peer-reviewed articles on tumors occurring in the same site and studies using molecular studies to confirm whether or not the tumors were histologically similar. Determination of the time limit for the "other sites" rules was probably the most difficult because so many sites are involved. However, the specialty-physicians felt that one year was an appropriate length of time to apply to these sites.

    		 2010