Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20100018 | Reportability/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is light chain disease reportable if it is treated with chemotherapy agents? See Discussion. | A patient was diagnosed in 2010 with light chain disease based on SPEP and urine testing. Bone marrow aspiration and biopsy were done. Flow cytometry, cytogenetic studies and FISH for plasma cell disorders are all normal. Medical oncologist states diagnosis is light chain disease. Patient was started on Revlimid, dexamethasone and Velcade.
In reviewing the case reportability instructions, this seems to fall under Instruction 1, note 1. Immunoglobulin deposition disease, preferred term for light chain disease, is coded as 9769/1. This is normally a non-reportable diagnosis, but the patient was given cancer-directed treatment. Would this case be accessioned using the above morphology code and primary site of bone marrow [C42.1]? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case is not reportable. The histology is 9769/1 [light chain disease] in the Heme DB.
Light chains are produced in neoplastic plasma cells (multiple myeloma) and are called Bence-Jones proteins. The physician did the cytogenetic studies and FISH to rule out plasma cell disease. 50-60% of people with Light-chain deposition disease (LCDD) have an associated lymphoproliferative disorder, most commonly multiple myeloma. The remaining patients develop LCDD in the setting of progression of monoclonal gammopathy of unknown significance (MGUS) with no evidence of neoplastic plasma cell proliferation. This patient falls in this category, MGUS, which is not reportable. |
2010 |
|
|
20100106 | Reportability-Bladder: Is a case with a cytology diagnosis, "positive for malignancy, favor low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma" reportable if the diagnosis on a subsequent bladder biopsy showed only "urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential"? See Discussion. | On 11/23/09 the patient had urine cytology diagnosis "positive for malignancy, favor low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma." On 12/28/09, the bladder biopsy showed "urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential."
SINQ 20081086 only addresses the example of a positive FNA/biopsy followed by a negative resection. Would the previous decision hold for this case when a positive fine needle aspiration biopsy is followed by only a negative biopsy? |
This case is not reportable. The pathology proved the cytology to be incorrect. The pathologic diagnosis is the "gold standard." When cytology and pathology disagree, use pathology.
|
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 |
|
|
20100108 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: How is histology coded for a left occipital parietal area tumor stated to be a "low grade neuroectodermal neoplasm most consistent with neuronal tumor but lacking classic features of ganglioma" if the pathologist states the tumor is not malignant? | Code 9505/0 [Ganglioglioma, benign] is the best option according to our pathology expert. He states, "There recently has been a spate of tumors called low grade glio-neuronal tumors that are not PNETs and have no propensity to become malignant." | 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 |
|
|
20100094 | Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a peripheral blood equivalent to bone marrow biopsy for the purposes of Rule PH26 and code the primary site to C421 [Bone marrow] for a marginal zone lymphoma found in peripheral blood when there was no additional workup (e.g., scans, etc.) for this case? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph. Code the primary site to C421 [bone marrow]. Our hematopoietic specialty physicians state that involvement of peripheral blood is equivalent to bone marrow involvement because the marrow produces blood. In the absence of any other involvement, per Module 7 (Coding primary sites for lymphomas) Rule PH26, it states to code the primary site to bone marrow when the only involvement is bone marrow. 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 | |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20100017 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Prostate: Does adenosquamous carcinoma found in the prostate represent a second primary in a patient previously diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the prostate? See Discussion. | Patient was diagnosed many years ago with adenocarcinoma of the prostate and treated with hormonal and radiation therapy. The patient recently underwent a TURP and is found to have adenosquamous carcinoma of the prostate. The pathology report comment states squamous carcinoma of the prostate is rare and is often associated with a history of hormonal or radiation therapy. There is no information indicating a history of a squamous carcinoma in the urinary system that could have involved the prostatic urethra.
Would the MP/H rules make this a second primary with the histology of 8560/3 [adenosquamous carcinoma]? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, based on the limited information available for this unusual case, abstract a second prostate primary and code the histology as adenosquamous carcinoma. Rule M3 does not apply in this case. Apply rule M10. | 2010 |
An official website of the United States government
