Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
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 |
|
|
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.
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 |
|
|
20100075 | Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be accessioned when a 1/27/10 bone marrow biopsy, FISH and cytogenetics reveals chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), BCR/ABL positive, t(9;22)(q34;q11) and a 4/15/10 bone marrow biopsy reveals B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Blast phase of CML)? | 1/27/10 BM biopsy: CML BCR/ABL+ FISH positive for BCR/ABL and cytogenetics showing the t(9;22)q34q11.2 translocation. Treated with Imatinib. 4/15/10 BM biopsy: B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Blast phase of CML). Would the term "blast phase of CML" indicate the 4/15/10 bone marrow biopsy showed CML or would a new primary be abstracted with histology coded 9811/3 [B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma, NOS]?
Applying rule M10, this is a new primary, but note 2 states transformations are defined in the Heme DB. The Abstractor Notes section indicates CML has three phases: chronic, accelerated, and the blastic phase or blast crisis. The accelerated phase can last weeks to months. In the chronic phase the involvement is usually limited to blood, bone marrow and spleen although the liver may be infiltrated. During the blastic phase, lymph nodes and tissue may be involved. The blastic phase is a disease progression from the chronic phase. The disease, however, remains the same histology, chronic myelogenous leukemia. |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case represents a multiple primary per Rule M15 which states you are to use the Heme DB Multiple Primaries Calculator to determine the number of primaries for all cases that do not meet the criteria of M1-M14.
The histology for the first primary is coded to 9875/3 [chronic myelogenous leukemia, BCR-ABL1 positive].
The histology for the second primary is 9811/3 [B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma, NOS] in the absence of further documentation that the B-ALL was also positive for the t(9;22) translocation.
The histology code 9806/3 [Mixed phenotype acute leukemia with t(9;22)(q34;q11.2); BCR-ABL1] cannot be used for the second primary because there is no documentation that the B-ALL diagnosed on 04/15/2010 also had the t(9;22) translocation and this histology cannot be used in patients ." Per the Definition section in the Heme DB, in order to use histology code 9806/3 "This leukemia meets the criteria for mixed phenotype acute leukemia (MPAL) in which the blasts also have t(9;22) translocation of BCR-ABL1 rearrangement. Some patients with chronic myeloid leukemia may develop or even present with a mixed blast phase that would meet criteria for MPAL; however, this diagnosis should not be made in patients known to have had CML."
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 |
|
|
20100091 | Reportability/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned and how is histology coded when a patient has a history of chronic myelogenous leukemia diagnosed in 1997 and a "blast crisis with myeloid markers" of this disease in 2010? See Discussion. | The patient was initially diagnosed with CML in 1997. In February 2010 the disease went into a "blast crisis with myeloid markers." The patient received induction chemotherapy and the disease went back into a chronic phase. To capture the 2010 diagnosis of a blast crisis, is the histology code 9875/3 [chronic myelogenous leukemia, BCR/ABL1 positive] or 9861/3 [acute myeloid leukemia, NOS] used? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule M2, there is a single primary. Code histology to 9863/3 [CML, BCR-ABL1 status unknown, Blastic phase (BP)]. The blast phase is not recorded as a new primary because this disease does NOT change histologies.
Code 9875 [Chronic myelogenous leukemia, BCR-ABL1 positive] does not apply to the 2010 diagnosis because BCR/ABL status unknown. Code 9861/3 [Acute myeloid leukemia, NOS] also does not apply because the diagnosis was not acute.
It is not clear which chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) this patient has. Each CML is unique in that it has a blast phase without the histology itself changing. See the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB under any of the chronic myelogenous leukemias for a further explanation of this disease process.
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20100034 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Esophagus: Should two separate nodules of adenocarcinoma with one at the GE junction [C160] and one arising in Barretts esophagus of the distal esophagus [C155] be accessioned as a single primary because these sites are now grouped together in the same stage grouping per the AJCC 7th Edition? See Discussion. | Per notes included in CSv2, the cardia/EGJ, and the proximal 5cm of the fundus and body of the stomach [C16.0-C16.2] have been moved from the Stomach chapter and added to the Esophagus chapter effective with AJCC TNM 7th Edition. A new schema, EG Junction, was created in CSv2 to accommodate this change. Tumors arising at the EGJ, or arising in the stomach within 5 cm of the EGJ and crossing the EGJ are staged using the schema for EG Junction. MP/H Rule M11 states that tumors with ICD-O-3 topography codes that are different at the second (Cxxx) and/or third characters (Cxxx) are multiple primaries.
In light of the fact that tumors of the GE junction are now included with tumors of the esophagus in AJCC 7th Edition, will the MP/H rules also be adjusted to reflect that change? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use the multiple primary rules to determine the number of primaries. Use staging resources for staging. Abstract two primaries for the case example using Rule M11. | 2010 |
|
|
20100061 | MP/H Rules/Histology: The 2010 SEER Manual has omitted some useful information in the Histologic Type ICD-O-3 section, specifically the statement of "Do not revise or update the histology code based on subsequent recurrence(s)". Will this statement be added to the revisions of the MPH rules? See Discussion. | Example: A 2005 diagnosis of left breast lobular carcinoma [8520/3], followed by a 2009 diagnosis of left breast ductal carcinoma [8500/3]. Rule M10 states this is a single primary, but there is no information in the Histology rules (Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary) that the original histology should be retained, thus a person could potentially use these rules to change the original histology to 8522/3 [duct and lobular carcinoma] per rule H28. | We will reinstate the instruction not to change the histology code based on recurrence in future versions of the histology coding instructions. However, this instruction may not be applicable to all anatomic sites. It will be reinstated on a site-by-site basis. You may also refer to the instructions on Page 7 of the 2010 SEER Manual under the heading "Changing Information on the Abstract." | 2010 |
|
|
20100087 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned for one patient with history of marginal zone lymphoma initially diagnosed in 1994, followed by a 2010 diagnosis of large B-cell lymphoma and another patient with both B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small cell lymphoma (CLL/SLL) and diffuse large B-cell (DLBCL) in 2009? See Discussion. | Case 1 - Patient has a history of marginal zone lymphoma diagnosed in 1994 with recurrences in 2007 and 2009. The patient now presents for a bone marrow biopsy in May 2010 and is found to have large B-cell lymphoma, transformation. The first primary, marginal zone lymphoma, falls under the 2009 rules and the second primary, large B-cell lymphoma, falls under the 2010 and forward rules?
Case 2 - Patient was diagnosed with B-cell CLL/SLL and a DLBCL in 2009. If the 2009 rules only apply, these are a single primary. If the patient is admitted and treated in 2010 are the rules still based on the diagnosis date? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Case 1: Accession two primaries per Rule M10 when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm AND there is a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis. The histology for the first primary is 9699/3 [marginal zone lymphoma] represents a chronic neoplasm and the second primary is 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma] is an acute neoplasm which was diagnosed more than 21 days after the first primary.
Case 2: Do not use the Heme DB and Manual rules for this case. Both diagnoses were made prior to 2010. The Heme DB and Manual are only effective for cases diagnosed 1/1/2010 and forward. Use the ICD-O-3 Hematopoietic Primaries Table to determine the number of primaries for this case. Per the Table, a second diagnosis of DLBCL [9680/3] following a diagnosis of CLL/SLL [9823/3] is one primary.
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 |
|
|
20100110 | Reportability--Esophagus/Stomach: Are the terms "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" synonymous with in situ for tumors in the gastrointestinal tract? See Discussion. |
SINQ 20000245 states that high grade or severe dysplasia in not synonymous with in situ disease. However, per page 109 in the 7th edition of AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, high grade dysplasia is the only term listed under Tis. A note on that page explains that "high-grade dysplasia includes all noninvasive neoplastic epithelia that was formerly called carcinoma in situ, a diagnosis that is no longer used for columnar mucosae anywhere in the gastrointestinal tract."
There has been considerable pressure from registrars at larger reporting facilities to re-address this issue. The pathologists at these facilities state that they are correctly documenting the presence of in situ disease when they use the term high grade dysplasia for gastrointestinal tract tumors. In their opinion, it is not necessary to add the term in situ in parentheses following the use of the term high grade dysplasia to clarify the behavior of these lesions in their pathology reports. If the term "carcinoma in situ" is no longer being used by many pathologists for sites in the gastrointestinal tract, won't this lead to underreporting of in situ disease for these sites unless the reportability guidelines are changed? |
For cancer reporting purposes, the terms "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" are not synonymous with in situ for tumors in the gastrointestinal tract. These cases are only reportable when the pathologist documents carcinoma in situ or intraepithelial neoplasia grade III, or when the registry includes in their policies and procedures the pathologist's statement that he/she uses HGD to mean the same as CIS.
Reportability laws are customarily based on ICD-O. Because "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" are not designated as in situ in the ICD-O, there is no legal authority to report these cases in most states.
NAACCR is reviewing this issue. See #5 on page 11 of the December 1, 2013 NAACCR Implementation document, http://www.naaccr.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=u7d3sB71t5w%3d&tabid=126&mid=466 |
2010 |
An official website of the United States government
