Multiple primaries--Lymphoma: Is mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma followed by classical Hodgkin lymphoma reportable as one or two primaries? See Discussion.
Diagnosed 06/06/2006 with mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, 9679/36. On 05/10/2007, another mediastinal lymph node biopsy done and the diagnosis was recurrent malignant lymphoma, classical Hodgkin's. A Hematopatholgy Consultant states, "it appears likely that the preceding mediastinal diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and the current classical Hodgkin's lymphoma are clonally related and represent different manifestations of the same entity. One might also place this in the spectrum of 'mediastinal gray zone lymphoma' described by Dr. Jaffee and colleagues."
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Report this case as two primaries. Report non-Hodgkin lymphoma followed by Hodgkin lymphoma as separate primaries.
According to the Table of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies, mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma and Hodgkin disease are "D" - Different disease processes.
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.
Flag: For cases diagnosed prior to 2001, how is the ICD-O-3 Conversion Flag set if the ICD-O-2 and ICD-O-3 histology and behavior fields are both directly coded, as registrars in this region are instructed to do when submitting late cases, and as a result no conversion is necessary? Is it to 0 [Morphology (Morph--Type&Behav ICD-O-3 originally coded in ICD-O-3)] or Blank [Not converted]?
Assign code 3 [converted with review].
In your scenario above, ICD-O-2 and ICD-O-3 are being independently coded which should yield the same result as converting the case and then reviewing it.
Otherwise, if there is an ICD-O-3 code which differs from the ICD-O-3 code based on the conversion criteria, it will trigger an edit.
Multiplicity Counter--Breast: How should the multiplicity counter be coded for a 3.8 cm infiltrating duct carcinoma with two "satellite nodules" measuring 5 mm and 7mm that are not described as either metastases or multiple foci?
Include these nodules in the multiplicity counter because they are measured and are part of the final diagnosis on the pathology report.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: When the microscopic description indicates a colon tumor is "tubulovillous," but the final diagnosis only states "adenocarcinoma," is the histology coded to 8263/3 [adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma]?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Yes. This is an example of a site-specific exception to the general rule to code only from the final diagnosis. The Colon Histology Rules specifically state that "other parts of the pathology report" may be used to identify a tumor arising from a polyp, adenomatous polyp, villous adenoma, or tubulovillous adenoma.
MP/H Rules/Recurrence: Is a subsequent diagnosis of an in situ tumor (bladder cancers excluded) a "recurrence" if it follows a prior invasive diagnosis of the original primary cancer made 5 years before?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use the 2007 MP/H rules to determine whether or not a subsequent diagnosis (either invasive or in situ) is a new primary or a recurrence. Do not use the statement "recurrence" from the medical record to make this decision.
When evaluating a subsequent diagnosis and the MP/H rules indicate "single primary," the tumor being evaluated is a "recurrence" of the original primary cancer.
CS Tumor Size/CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: How do you code the CS Tumor size and SSF6 fields for a breast cancer described as "Paget disease with underlying intraductal carcinoma (4cm x 3.2cm)"?
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.CS Tumor Size: Assign code 040 for tumor size and code SSF6 as 050 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in CS TS]. The size of the invasive component is not stated AND proportions of in situ and invasive are not known.
Multiplicity Counter/CS Tumor Size: The Multiplicity Counter rule 6c states "Use code 99 when the tumor is described as diffuse". Is code 99 used in all circumstances when tumor size is coded to 998? See Discussion.
The CS manual lists esophagus, stomach, familila/familial polyposis (colon), lung, and breast as the only circumstances when code 998 is valid. If this is correct, then if TS is coded to 998, then Multiplicity Counter must be 99.
If the number of tumors is known, code the number in Multiplicity Counter. If the number of tumors is not known, assign code 99. If "diffuse" is the only information available to describe the tumor, assign code 99.
MP/H Rules--Ovary: Rule M7 states bilateral epithelial tumors (8000-8799) are reportable as a single primary. Are bilateral germ cell tumors of the ovary (e.g., dysgerminoma (9060/3)) that occur simultaneously now reported as two primaries?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, rule M7 applies to ovarian epithelial tumors with ICD-O-3 histology codes between 8000 and 8799. Rule M7 does not apply to dysgerminoma which is coded to 9060. Go on to the next rule, M8 and abstract as multiple primaries, left and right.
Ambiguous Terminology/Date of Diagnosis: How would you code the diagnosis date when the body of an imaging report uses reportable ambiguous terminology while the final impression in that same report uses non-reportable ambiguous terminology? Would you code the diagnosis date to the date of the scan or to the subsequent biopsy date that confirmed a malignancy? See Discussion.
Within the body of a mammogram report, the radiologist stated, "diffuse inflammatory tissue throughout the rt breast w/ large rt axillary lymph nodes, consistent with an inflammatory carcinoma of rt breast." His final impression, however, said "extremely suspicious rt breast w/ extremely dense breast parenchyma and adenopathy in axilla, suggesting an inflammatory carcinoma." The patient then went on to have a biopsy, which was indeed positive for cancer.
Accept the reportable ambiguous terminology from the body of the mammogram. Record the date of the mammogram as the date of diagnosis.
The guidelines on page 4 of the 2007 SEER manual addressing discrepancies within the medical record can be applied to discrepancies within one report.
The instructions are:
If one section of the medical record(s) uses a reportable term such as
apparently and another section of the medical record(s) uses a term that is not on the reportable list, accept the reportable term and accession the case.
MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: If the biopsy for a lung primary is actually taken from a pleural mass, can the default rule "when there are several lung masses and only one lesion is biopsied, consider this a single primary" apply? See Discussion.
Scenario: A parenchymal lesion in each lung. One lung also has a pleural lesion. MD biopsies the pleural mass only and it is positive for cancer.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Do not assume the biopsy of the pleural mass is a biopsy of the lung. Apply the 2007 MP/H Lung rules to the lung tumors only. For this case, the pleural lesion would be a metastasis (outside the lung). The 2007 MP/H rules do not apply to metastatic lesions.
The 2007 MP/H Lung rules do not apply to pleura as a primary site. If the pleural lesion is primary, it should be abstracted as a separate primary.
An official website of the United States government
Home