Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
20140021 | Reportability--Breast: Is an inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor of the breast with metastasis to the lung reportable? | Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor of the breast with metastasis to the lung is reportable. Metastasis to the lung from the breast tumor indicates that the breast tumor is malignant. All malignant neoplasms are reportable. | 2014 | |
|
20120036 | Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the primary site be coded to C779 or C809 when a patient is diagnosed at another facility with mantle cell lymphoma and the staging bone marrow biopsy performed at this facility is negative? There is no available information concerning where the lymphoma originated. | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per PH Rule22, code the primary site to C779 [lymph nodes, NOS].
Rule PH22 is a default rule for lymphomas that is used when there is no other information regarding the primary site and the Heme DB does not indicate a primary site under its Primary Site(s) section. Rule PH27, code the primary site to unknown [C809], does not apply. Only use C809 [unknown] as the primary site when there is no evidence of lymphoma in lymph nodes AND the physician documents that the lymphoma originates in an organ(s).
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. |
2012 | |
|
20061020 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: For cases diagnosed in 2005, if a specimen contains an invasive 4.5 cm lobular carcinoma of the right breast and also has a tiny focus of intraepidermal tumors cells [Paget disease of nipple], how many cases should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
There are two primaries in this example:
1. Invasive lobular carcinoma [8520/3] 2. In situ Paget disease of nipple [8540/2].
There is no combination code for lobular carcinoma and Paget disease.
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules. |
2006 | |
|
20021022 | Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "non oat cell carcinoma"? | For tumors diagnosed 2001-2006:
Code the Histology field to 8046/3 [non-small cell carcinoma] if the pathologist does not provide a more specific histologic type. "Non oat cell" is a synonym for "non-small cell."
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules. |
2002 | |
|
20071048 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: If the abstractor only has the CAP protocol information from a pathology report and it does not include a "final diagnosis" label, which fields of the protocol are used to determine the histology and whether there is carcinoma in situ present in the specimen? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, if the CAP protocol is used in lieu of a final diagnosis, use all of the information in the CAP protocol. | 2007 | |
|
20110146 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be accessioned when a patient was diagnosed in 2003 with malignant lymphoma, mixed cell type, follicular in the inguinal lymph nodes and was recently diagnosed with follicular lymphoma (by a neck lymph node biopsy) involving the neck and mediastinal lymph nodes? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case should be accessioned as a single primary: malignant lymphoma, mixed cell type, follicular [9691/3] diagnosed in 2003. The following describes how this determination was made.
This case is one in which the terminology for follicular lymphoma has changed over time. In 2003, follicular lymphoma was classified as small cleaved cell, large cell, or mixed cell (both small cleaved and large cell). Those designations are no longer used. This disease process is currently classified as follicular lymphoma NOS, grade 1, grade 2 or grade 3. The change was simply a change in classification/terminology.
Appendix A, Table A3 (Obsolete Terms as Defined in ICD-O-3, Lymphoid Neoplasm Obsolete Terms) should be used to determine the current term when an obsolete term is known/given. Per the Table, "Mixed cell type follicular lymphoma" is currently known as "Follicular lymphoma, grade 2" and the correct histology code is 9691/3. This is the correct histology for the 2003 primary.
Per Rule M15, the histologies must be check in the Multiple Primaries Calculator to determine the number of primaries. Enter [follicular lymphoma, grade 2 (malignant lymphoma, mixed cell type, follicular)] for Histology Code 1 and [follicular lymphoma, NOS] for Histology Code 2. The result is "Same Primary." As a result, accession a single 2003 diagnosed primary with the histology follicular lymphoma, grade 2 [9691/3] when the patient is subsequently diagnosed with follicular lymphoma, NOS.
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. |
2011 | |
|
20170056 | Reportability/Histology--Skin: Is 'skin, left temporal scalp, low grade adnexal carcinoma, probable sweat gland origin' reportable as 8400/3, skin of temple? |
Assign 8390/3 for adnexal carcinoma of skin. 8390/3 is reportable, including 8390/3 of skin. |
2017 | |
|
20061011 | CS Site Specific Factor/CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: If the ITCs are greater than 0.2 mm, how are these fields coded? | 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 with metastases greater than 0.2 mm are counted as positive. Code in CS Lymph Nodes and CS Regional LN Positive. Do not code ITC's greater than 0.2 mm in CS Site Specific Factor 4. |
2006 | |
|
20071046 | Ambiguous Terminology: Why was 60 days chosen for ambiguous terminology? | The Histology Task Force approved a 60 day time frame for ambiguous terminology. The majority of cases are first identified by ambiguous terminology; for example, a patient has a mammogram that shows a lesion suspicious for cancer. That first indication of cancer prompts a work-up to either confirm or rule-out the cancer diagnosis. The data item "Ambiguous terminology" is not intended to capture information on this routine method of detecting and diagnosing cancer. The 60 day time frame should keep these cases out of the ambiguous terminology data item. The data item is intended to identify those cases where the cancer diagnosis is NOT confirmed during the work-up, but the case is still entered into the database. For example a patient who has a TRUS because of elevated PSA. The pathology from the TRUS says "Suspicious for adenocarcinoma of the prostate." The physician only documents that the patient is to return in 6 months for another PSA and TRUS. The registrar would enter this case into the data base because the word "suspicious" is on the ambiguous terminology list. |
2007 | |
|
20061137 | Reportability/Grade, Differentiation: Does the term "grade 0" refer to differentiation or does its use as a modifying phrase in the final diagnosis of "grade 0 immature teratoma" impact reportability? |
Regarding the term "grade 0" for an immature teratoma, determine whether the pathologist is using that term to describe the primary tumor or its implants. The term can be used to describe both situations. An immature teratoma (IT) may have grade 0 (benign) implants. Grade 0 implants may affect the prognosis and treatment, but the primary tumor (IT) would still be malignant and therefore reportable. If grade 0 pertains to the primary tumor (as opposed to implants) it is benign, and therefore not reportable. |
2006 |