Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20091043 | Multiple primaries--Lymphoma: Should a second primary lymphoma be accessioned if the reporting hospital disagrees with the final diagnosis stated on a review of slides? See Discussion. |
Example: Patient had an original diagnosis of small lymphocytic lymphoma (9670/3) of lung in 1986 and later presents with small B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (9670/3) of small bowel in 2008 at Hospital A. Slides sent for review at Hospital B where patient was also seen. Slides there read as low grade B-cell lymphoma most consistent with extranodal marginal B-cell lymphoma of mucosal associated tissue (MALT Lymphoma). Hospital A's pathology report stated that immunostains would exclude mantle cell lymphoma and MALT lymphoma and the original pathology report has not been amended to match the outside path diagnosis. Is this a second primary of MALT lymphoma (9699)? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:The 2008 diagnosis is not a new primary according to the Definitions of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies (the tri-fold heme table) using the pathology report diagnosis from the facility where the procedure was performed (Hospital A). Since Hospital A disagreed with the slide review and did not amend their diagnosis based on the slide review, do not use the slide review diagnosis in this case. For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ. |
2009 |
|
|
20091105 | Multiple Primaries--Hematopoietic: How many primaries and which histologies should be reported for a case presenting with a 2005 diagnosis of CLL/SLL, 2006 clinical diagnosis of MDS and a 2008 diagnosis of AML? See Discussion. |
2005 diagnosis of CLL/SLL (9670) with lymph node involvement, treated with FCR. 2006 clinical diagnosis of MDS secondary to chemo (9987) with CLL/SLL in remission. 2008 biopsy reveals AML (9861). Per Seer Hematopoietic Table, 9987 & 9861 are a single primary. In 6/2008 patient receives bone marrow transplant. 2009 status post BMT, BM biopsy reveals RAEB-1 (9983). Is this still the same disease process or a new primary (since status post BMT)? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Two primaries should be abstracted. Using the Definitions of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies table, compare 9670 (SLL) in 2005 and 9987 (MDS secondary to chemo) in 2006. This is two primaries. MDS can transform to AML. On the Definitions of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies table, 9987 (MDS) and 9861 (AML) are a single primary. The AML would be documented in follow-up. (While 9670/SLL and 9861/AML are two different primaries, the SLL has already been reported.) RAEB is a form of MDS. On the Definitions of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies table, 9987 (MDS) and 9983 (RAEB) are a single primary. The RAEB would be documented in follow-up. (While 9670/SLL and 9983/RAEB are two different primaries, the SLL has already been reported.) For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ. |
2009 |
|
|
20091089 | Histology--Hematopoietic: How is histology coded for a "chronic lymphocytic leukemia with plasmacytic differentiation"? | For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Assign histology code 9823/3 [Chronic lymphocytic leukemia]. Plasmacytic differentiation does not indicate a plasma cell or plasmacytic leukemia. For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ. |
2009 | |
|
|
20091116 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries - - Colon: Is a colon tumor reported as "recurrent at the anastomotic junction" just over one year after the diagnosis of a T4 colon tumor to be counted as a new primary? See Discussion. | MP/H rules do not apply to metastasis. However, it has been our experience that pathologists and clinicians tend to use the terms metastatic and recurrence interchangeably. The term "recurrence" is not limited to a tumor recurrence in the same site as a previous malignancy. Sometimes it is obvious that the clinician is using the term recurrence to describe a metastatic lesion. When a "recurrence" is located in tissue that is very different from the original primary site, it is easy to recognize that the intended meaning of the term is metastasis.
Example: Patient with squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue with recurrence in the lung.
However, when the metastatic deposit occurs in similar tissue, it is more difficult to determine the number of primaries.
Example when the term "recurrence" is ambiguous: In April 2008 patient was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the ascending colon. At the time of hemicolectomy the tumor was noted to be plastered into the paraduodenal and peripancreatic area. Patient received one dose of adjuvant chemo and then discontinued treatment. In May 2009 the patient was found to have adenocarcinoma in the transverse colon. Per the pathology report the diagnosis for segmental resection at that time showed colonic adenocarcinoma. Tumor location: tumor appears recurrent at anastomotic junction. Abdominal wall mass showed metastatic adenocarcinoma.
One has to wonder if the pathologist found a metastatic nodule at the anastomotic site and called it "recurrent." It is unlikely that the pathologist will compare this specimen to the previous tumor, having already diagnosed it as "recurrent."
|
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M4 applies to the example of adenocarcinoma of ascending colon diagnosed in 2008 followed by adenocarcinoma of transverse colon diagnosed in 2009. When a colon resection has taken place, the original primary site is no longer present. A colon resection usually includes a portion of uninvolved colon on either side of the tumor. A tumor diagnosed at the anastomotic junction cannot be located in the same site as the previous tumor. Use of the term "recurrent" in this case is not synonymous with "metastatic." Apply the MP/H rules. | 2009 |
|
|
20091020 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How do you code histology for a breast tumor when the comment section of the pathology report compares the current resected specimen with a previous needle biopsy? See Discussion. | A single tumor is described on the breast needle biopsy as "infiltrating lobular carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ" and on the lumpectomy specimen as "infiltrating duct carcinoma." Per the COMMENT section on the pathology report: "Tumor resection was compared to previous needle biopsy. The appropriate designation is probably a terminal duct/lobular lesion." | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8522 [Infiltrating duct and lobular carcinoma] according to Breast MP/H rule H16. The comment on the lumpectomy pathology report takes both the lumpectomy information and the biopsy information into consideration. "Probable" is an ambiguous term used to code histology. | 2009 |
|
|
20091096 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be reported when an in situ diagnosis is followed by an invasive diagnosis in the same breast 1.5 years later? See Discussion. | Patient had a core biopsy 1/07 that showed DCIS and PE showed no adenopathy. Patient refused resection, and adjuvant treatment. In 6/08, the pt returned for a modified radical mastectomy which showed infiltrating duct carcinoma and positive lymph nodes. A comment in the Correction Record stated "Per MD, patient did not see any urgency and delayed surgery 1.5 years after diagnosis." The patient did not have any treatment in that time period and there is no statement that there was progression. | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract the 6/08 invasive diagnosis as a separate primary according to rule M8. Rule M8 applies whether or not the later diagnosis in this case is progression of disease. | 2009 |
|
|
20091001 | CS Lymph Nodes/CS Mets at DX--Ovary: Are lymph nodes in the pericolic mesentery of the sigmoid that are removed during ovarian cancer debulking surgery, coded as regional or distant? See Discussion. | Debulking surgery found tumor in both ovaries and in lymph nodes of pericolic mesentery, which was removed en bloc with a segment of sigmoid colon (colon had tumor implants involving serosa). Pericolic nodes are not listed as regional for ovary. However Note 2 in the CS manual for Extension states "sigmoid mesentery" is a regional pelvic organ, and that metastatic deposits here should be coded in the extension field, not as distant mets. Should lymph nodes from this same area be coded as regional or distant? | This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2. Lymph nodes in the mesentery of the sigmoid colon are regional for an ovarian primary. Code involved sigmoid mesenteric nodes under CS Lymph Nodes. |
2009 |
|
|
20091117 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology to be coded for a breast primary described as "tubular carcinoma (well differentiated invasive ductal carcinoma)"? See Discussion. | How are terms that are modified by parentheses to be interpreted? Do terms in parentheses modify the stated diagnosis and thus have priority over the stated diagnosis? Or would rule H17 apply and histology would be coded as duct and other carcinoma? For this case, the wording of the diagnosis and use of parentheses seem to indicate that tubular is a type of ductal carcinoma. Tubular is not listed as a specific duct carcinoma in the MP/H rules histology tables for breast. |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology as tubular carcinoma [8211/3]. This is not a case of tubular AND infiltrating duct. The histology is stated to be tubular. Tubular is not a specific type of duct carcinoma. | 2009 |
|
|
20091078 | MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Head & Neck: How many primaries should be reported when an invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the right mandibular body (C06.9) was diagnosed in 2004 (treated with surgery and radical neck dissection), and an invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the left buccal mucosa (C06.0) was diagnosed in 2007? See Discussion. | According to the MP/H Rules, it appears Rule M12 would apply since none of the others fit and these would be a single primary. | For cases diagnosed 2007-2014: Based on the information provided, the primary site code for the 2004 primary should be C031 [mandibular gingiva, lower alveolar mucosa, etc.]. The 2007 diagnosis would be a separate primary according to rule M7 because the patient was disease free following treatment for the 2004 diagnosis. C031 and C060 are different at the third character. |
2009 |
|
|
20091006 | Primary site--Lung: What primary site code is used for bronchus intermedius? |
Assign code C340 [main bronchus].
The bronchus intermedius is the lower part of the main bronchus on the right side. The bronchus intermedius begins just below the point where the upper lobe bronchus branches off from the main bronchus. The bronchus intermedius branches into the middle lobe bronchus and the lower lobe bronchus.
|
2009 |
An official website of the United States government
