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: 02/26/2026 00:18 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20130170

MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What is the histology code for "invasive carcinoma of the breast, no special type" as the final diagnosis on a pathology report? See Discussion.

Recently pathology reports for breast primaries are no longer listing invasive ductal carcinoma as the histology on many cases if the treating physician calls the cancer an invasive ductal carcinoma. The pathology report (final diagnosis and synopsis) state this is invasive carcinoma, no special type.

Upon inquiry to the pathology department, the response received stated, In 2012, the WHO got rid of ductal carcinoma as a specific type. So what would have been called Invasive ductal carcinoma, Not Otherwise Specified (NOS), is now being called Invasive carcinoma, No Special Type (NST). In the new WHO classification, lobular, tubular, cribriform, mucinous, etc. are the special types. But ductal is gone.

Is this a change in terminology? Should these cases be coded as 8500/3 [ductal carcinoma, NOS] or 8010/3 [carcinoma, NOS]?

Code the histology to ductal carcinoma, NOS [8500/3] for a pathology report with a final diagnosis of "invasive carcinoma, no special type." Do not code the histology to carcinoma, NOS [8010/3].

The 4th Edition of the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Breast refers to invasive ductal carcinoma as invasive carcinoma, no special type. The ICD-O-3 code remains the same as invasive duct carcinoma [8500/3]. The next revision to the MP/H Solid Tumor Rules will clarify this issue.

2013
20130070

Reportability--Is "intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm with low grade dysplasia" (also called IPMN adenoma) reportable? See Discussion.

According to the ICD-O-3, the histology for IPMN adenoma is 8453/0 is non-reportable. However, per SINQ 20021099, this is reportable.

Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the pancreas with low grade dysplasia, also referred to as IPMN adenoma, is not reportable.

IPMN of the pancreas is reportable when stated as "IPMN with high-grade dysplasia," or "IPMN with an associated invasive carcinoma," or  "IPMN with an associated in situ carcinoma."

The case in SINQ 20021099 is stated to have "multifocal high grade dysplasia (so-called borderline tumor and carcinoma in-situ)" and is reportable because there is an explicit statement of carcinoma in situ, not because of the reference to the presence of high grade dysplasia. It is coded 8453/2 [Intraductal papillary-mucinous carcinoma, non-invasive].

 2013
20130146 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the histology code for a diagnosis of myeloproliferative neoplasm/myelodysplastic syndrome overlap?

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

Code the histology to 9975/3 [myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable]. Per the Definition section in the Heme DB, this neoplasm has the, "Clinical laboratory and morphological features of myeloproliferative neoplasm but fails to meet the criteria for a specific myeloproliferative neoplasm; or presents with features that overlap two or more MPN neoplasms."

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.

2013
20130094 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries are accessioned and which M rule applies for a 2010 diagnosis of clear cell adenocarcinoma of the left upper lobe lung followed by a 2012 diagnosis of adenosquamous carcinoma of lung origin without evidence of a primary lung tumor? See Discussion.

Patient was diagnosed with T1 N0 M0 adenocarcinoma with prominent clear cell features [8310/3] in the LUL on 08/05/2010. The patient underwent a lobectomy only.

On 10/09/2012 the patient underwent an iliac bone biopsy showing non-small cell carcinoma with glandular and squamous features [8560/3]. Clinically, the physician is calling this stage IV adenosquamous carcinoma of lung origin involving lymph nodes, spleen and bones. There were no FDG avid pulmonary nodules found. There was no pathologic comparison to the prior lung tumor.

Should the 2012 diagnosis be a new primary because the histology is different from the 2010 diagnosis? Or should this be one primary because there appears to be only metastatic disease with no new primary lung tumor identified in 2012? The choice of one primary seems supported by the fact that the 2012 tumor showed glandular and squamous features, and the 2010 tumor also showed glandular and clear cell (NOS) features. The clear cell could have been a clear cell squamous cell carcinoma. The original tumor was not re-examined.

Accession a single primary, clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] of the left upper lobe lung [C341] diagnosed on 08/05/2010.

The MP/H Rules do not apply to the 2012 diagnosis because only metastatic sites were examined and there was no re-examination of the original 2010 tumor. Therefore, the disease process in 2012 is assumed to be metastatic from the lung primary diagnosed in 2010.

2013
20130054 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries are accessioned if a lobectomy has two tumors that are both stated to be adenocarcinoma but the pathologist states they are synchronous primaries? See Discussion.

Left upper lung lobectomy: Adenocarcinoma, poorly-differentiated (grade 3), tumor size 1.2 cm, confined to lung. Second primary lung tumor: adenocarcinoma, well-differentiated (grade 1), tumor size 0.9 cm, confined to lung. Diagnosis COMMENT: The two tumors, although both adenocarcinoma, show markedly different histologies and thus are classified as synchronous primaries. Multiple synchronous primaries are staged separately according to the 7th edition of AJCC.

The AJCC Staging Manual 7th ed states, "Multiple tumors may be considered to be synchronous primaries if they are of different histological cell types. When multiple tumors are of the same cell type, they should only be considered to be synchronous primary tumors if, in the opinion of the pathologist, based on features such as ..., they represent different subtypes of the same histologic cell type..."

In this case, the pathologist insists these are two synchronous primaries, although different subtypes are not given, because the tumors have different grades and look completely different under the microscope. The MP/H rules indicate this is a single primary. How many primaries are accessioned?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession a single primary, adenocarcinoma [8140/3] of the left upper lobe lung [C341]. The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). Go to the Lung MP rules because site specific rules exist for this primary.

Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. The patient has two tumors in the same lung with the same histology.

Do not use the AJCC Manual to make multiple primary decisions. Use the MP/H Rules to determine the number of primaries to accession.

2013
20130059

Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site coded if a patient with a history of chemotherapy treated "groin" lymphoma, subsequently has bone biopsies that demonstrate diffuse large B-cell lymphoma? See Discussion.

3/2012: Patient states he has a past history of lymphoma of the "groin." A bone biopsy of the right tibia done at this facility showed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. There was no palpable lymphadenopathy on 03/2012. There is no other information available regarding the initial diagnosis except that the patient was treated with only chemotherapy.

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

Code the primary site to C774 [inguinal lymph nodes] per Rule PH18. Code the primary site to inguinal lymph nodes [C774] when the site of lymphoma is described only as an inguinal mass. Groin lymph nodes are inguinal lymph nodes.

The diffuse large B-cell lymphoma diagnosed by right tibia biopsy is not a new primary per rule M7 because the histology of the history only case would be coded as 9590/3 [lymphoma, NOS]. No more specific histology is known for the initial diagnosis. Accession a single primary when a more specific histology [DLBCL] is diagnosed after the NOS ONLY histology when the Heme DB Multiple Primaries Calculator confirms the NOS and the more specific histology are the same primary. The right tibial involvement is not used to code the primary site because the patient had chemotherapy for this groin lymphoma prior to diagnosis of DLBCL.

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..

 2013
20130013

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS) reportable?

MCAS has been given an ICD-9 code of 202.60 by our medical record coders. In the Progress Notes, the physicians state this is not the same as systemic mastocytosis. There is no listing for MCAS in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Database.

Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS) is not a reportable neoplasm unless it is specifically stated to be a result of a mast cell proliferative disorder that is reportable.

Per our expert pathologist, MCAS is a relatively new term used for conditions in which patients experience the symptoms of mast cell mediators in the absence of an increase/proliferation of mast cells. The diagnosis of this group of disorders is based in part on a complex of symptoms and on the demonstration of no increase in mast cells. Some of these diseases are difficult to separate from mastocytosis (which is reportable). Currently, this group of disorders is not part of the systemic mastocytosis/mast cell leukemia/mast cell sarcoma spectrum.

 2013
20130112 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site coded for a diagnosis of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) diagnosed on an inguinal lymph node biopsy with CT scan evidence of lymphadenopathy in the chest, abdomen and pelvis if the bone marrow is also involved?

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

Code the primary site to multiple lymph node regions, NOS [C778] per Rule PH21 when multiple lymph node regions, as defined by the ICD-O-3, are involved and it is not possible to identify the lymph node region where the lymphoma originated

In the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB for PTLD it states PTLD commonly involves lymph nodes, GI tract, lungs and the liver. This patient has extensive lymph node involvement. Rule PH26 states to code the primary site to the bone marrow when ONLY the bone marrow is involved; however, that does not apply in this case.

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.

2013
20130062 Date of diagnosis--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the diagnosis date be coded to the date of the flow cytometry on the peripheral blood or the date of the bone marrow biopsy for a diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/low grade B-cell lymphoma? See Discussion. Is a flow cytometry on peripheral blood alone diagnostic of a hematopoietic malignancy (CLL)? If not, when the diagnosis is verified by a subsequent histologic diagnosis (bone marrow biopsy) would the diagnosis date be the date of the peripheral blood flow cytometry or the date of the bone marrow biopsy? The Class of Case depends on this diagnosis date.

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

Code the diagnosis date to the date of the peripheral blood flow cytometry because this is a procedure used to diagnose CLL. Per both the Abstractor Notes and the Definitive Diagnostic Methods sections in the Heme DB, CLL is diagnosed by flow cytometry (immunophenotyping).

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.

2013
20130121 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is "early essential thrombocythemia" reportable? See Discussion. The bone marrow biopsy diagnosis was, "Combined bone marrow morphologic, flow cytometric, immunohistochemical, molecular and cytogenetic findings are most consistent with early or evolving essential thrombocythemia with low level JAK2 V617F mutation documented on molecular testing." The physician is calling this a benign process. Is this reportable as essential thrombocythemia? Are the terms early or evolving ignored? Does the presence of a JAK2 mutation make this reportable? Without JAK2 testing is this case reportable?

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

Yes, this is a reportable case. The histology is coded to 9962/3 [essential thrombocythemia]. The positive JAK2 mutation testing and bone marrow biopsy results taken together support the diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia in this case.

In the Abstractor Notes section of the Heme DB, it indicates that only 50-60 percent of patients with essential thrombocythemia will have a positive JAK2 mutation. A diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia can still be made in the absence of a JAK2 mutation. For example, if the bone marrow biopsy final diagnosis or a physician's clinical diagnosis is essential thrombocythemia, despite a negative JAK2 mutation test, the neoplasm is still reportable.

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.

2013