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: 07/04/2024 02:19 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
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
20000530 Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation--Brain and CNS: What code is used to represent the histology and grade for "WHO-II astrocytoma, grade II" of the brain when the WHO-II classification is different from the classification systems previously used? See discussion. According to the WHO-I classification system, this is a moderately anaplastic astrocytoma. According to the Duke criteria, this is an astrocytoma. By Dauma-Dupont criteria, this is a grade 2 astrocytoma.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology and Grade, Differentiation fields to 9401/34 [anaplastic astrocytoma].

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.

 2000
20071107

MP/H Rules/Recurrence--Breast: If the pathologist and oncologist call a 2007 lobular carcinoma that appears in a skin nodule of a mastectomy scar a recurrence of a patient's 1975 primary breast duct carcinoma, should we abstract this as a new primary? See Discussion.

According to the pathologist and oncologist, the change in histology is attributed to the present availability of E-cadherin, which was not available in 1975.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract the 2007 diagnosis as a separate primary using rule M5.

Rule M5 applies to this case because it comes before rule M12. Furthermore, based on your statement, the answer presumes that the original tumor was duct carcinoma only, there was no lobular carcinoma present. This must be a new primary because there are two different histologies.

The 2007 MP/H rules were developed with input from clinicians. They advised that a subsequent breast tumor more than five years later is a new primary. It is important to apply the rules so that these cases are handled in a consistant manner across all registries.

 2007
20120052 Ambiguous Terminology/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the histology code if the final diagnosis is "non-Hodgkin lymphoma NOS," but after further genetic and immunohistochemistry studies were performed the pathology report diagnosis COMMENT section stated the immunohistochemistry findings were "compatible with follicular lymphoma"? See Discussion Ambiguous terminology is not to be used to code a more specific histology. However the immunohistochemistry results (the definitive diagnostic method for follicular lymphoma) seem to clarify the non-specific diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

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

Ambiguous terms are not used to code a specific histology. This includes ambiguous terminology used as a result of immunophenotyping or genetic studies. However, a definitive clinical diagnosis can be used to code a more specific histology.

In this example, the histology is coded to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS [9591/3] because the pathology final diagnosis was non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS even though it was followed by further genetic and immunohistochemistry studies that were "compatible with" (ambiguous terminology) follicular lymphoma.

However, if there was a subsequent non-ambiguous clinical diagnosis, the histology would be coded to the more specific diagnosis. For example, if the pathology final diagnosis was non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS, and there was a subsequent clinical diagnosis of follicular lymphoma or the patient was treated for follicular lymphoma, then the histology should be coded to 9690/3 [follicular lymphoma, NOS]. Document either of these in a text field to support the histology code chosen. Follicular lymphoma is a specific type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. If you do have a confirmed diagnosis of follicular lymphoma, code that specific cell type per rule PH29.

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
20130082 Ambiguous terminology/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology coded when a skin of lip pathology report demonstrates neoplastic lymphoid infiltrate with small B cells, compatible with B-cell small lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukemia? See Discussion. Ambiguous terminology is not used to code histology. What is the correct histology for this case? There was no other clinical statement from the physician regarding the histology following the release of the pathology report diagnosis.

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

Code the histology to 9823/3 [chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma]. This primary was accessioned based on reportable ambiguous terminology. The surgical pathology report was compatible with B-cell small lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukemia, "compatible with" is a reportable ambiguous term. A neoplastic lymphoid infiltrate is not a reportable diagnosis. Therefore, a diagnosis compatible with CLL/SLL is coded as histology code 9823/3.

The statement that you do not use ambiguous terms to code histology is intended for those NOS histologies with an ambiguous term being used to describe the subtype.

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
20031152 Ambiguous Terminology/Histology (Pre-2007): How do we code histology when there is a difference between the histology mentioned on a suspicious cytology and the clinical diagnosis by the treating physician? See Description. An FNA of pancreas is stated as "highly atypical cells present, suspicious for pancreatic ductal carcinoma." The attending physician states the patient has pancreatic carcinoma. Can histology be coded 8500/3 [infiltrating duct carcinoma, NOS] or should it be 8010/3 [carcinoma, NOS]?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the histology from a suspicious cytology when this histology is supported by the clinical diagnosis.

Code the example above to 8010/3 [Carcinoma, NOS].

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.

 2003
20110065 Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted when a skin (right thigh) biopsy is consistent with mycosis fungoides (cutaneous T-cell lymphoma)? See Discussion. Applying rule M15 (multiple primaries calculator) indicates this is two primaries. Is this correct?

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

Code the primary site to C447 [skin of lower limb] and code histology to 9700/3 [mycosis fungoides]. he pathologist wrote in parentheses that this was cutaneous (i.e. primary site is skin) and that it is a T-cell lymphoma (mycosis fungoides is a T-cell lineage). So the parenthetical statement was not a separate diagnosis; rather a general classification of the mycosis fungoides. "CTCL" is listed under the Alternate Names section of the Heme DB. CTCL is an abbreviation for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. CTCL is a synonym for mycosis fungoides. This is a single primary per M2 which states to abstract a single primary when there is a single histology.

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
20100019 Histology--Ovary: How is histology coded for an ovarian mucinous neoplasm of low malignant potential (borderline mucinous cystadenoma) that shows extensive intraepithelial carcinoma and focal microinvasion? See Discussion. At surgery a 25 cm left ovarian mass is found adherent to the anterior abdominal wall. The final diagnosis per the pathology report is, "Mucinous neoplasm (26 cm) of low malignant potential (borderline mucinous cystadenoma) with extensive intraepithelial ca and focal microinvasion. Right ovary, fallopian tubes, uterus, omentum, biopsies of diaphragm, 28 para-aortic and pelvic LNS and peritoneal fluid are all negative for malignancy." Histology code 8470/3 [mucinous cystadenocarcinoma] is the best choice in this case. There is a mucinous cystadenoma [8470/0] with intraepithelial carcinoma and focal microinvasion. 8470/3 comes as close as possible to the description of the tumor. 2010
20091113 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded when a nipple biopsy shows Paget disease but the mastectomy specimen shows only infiltrating ductal carcinoma in the breast tissue and the nipple is negative for Paget disease? See Discussion. Biopsy of nipple showed Paget disease. Subsequent mastectomy showed two tumors proven to be infiltrating ductal carcinoma. Nipple is negative. Per MP/H rule M9, this is all counted as a single primary. Do we code histology from the most representative specimen and lose the information about the Paget disease? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology 8541/3 [Paget disease and infiltrating duct carcinoma]. Paget disease of the nipple and infiltrating duct are separate tumors. For each tumor, take the histology from the most representative specimen. The biopsy is the most representative specimen for the Paget disease. The mastectomy is the most representative specimen for the infiltrating duct. According to the multiple primary rules, tumors that are Paget disease and duct are a single primary (M9). According to the histology rules, assign code 8541/3 (H26). 2009
20021017 Measured Thickness--Melanoma: Can in situ melanoma cases have "depth of invasion" coded to something other than 999? See discussion. Biopsy of the left arm: Melanoma, 0.2mm in thickness. The in situ component extends to a peripheral margin.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the Measured Thickness (depth) field to 020 [0.2 mm] for this case.

In situ disease can have a depth of invasion because the surface epithelium can be of varying depths without the melanoma breaking through the basement membrane.

 2002