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: 10/06/2024 16:30 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20140013 Primary site--Brain and CNS: How should primary site be coded for a medulloblastoma described as a "posterior fossa mass" and "centered within the fourth ventricle"? See discussion. The associated site code for medulloblastoma in the ICD-O-3 is C716. However, the SEER Manual specifically instructs to ignore the associated site code if a different primary site is noted. Although most medulloblastomas appear to arise in the cerebellum, when described as "centered within the fourth ventricle" can we assume that is the primary site and not simply invasion of the fourth ventricle from the cerebellum?

Code the primary to C717 for this case.

Code the primary site according to the origin of a particular medulloblastoma when it differs from the site code listed in ICD-O-3. The description "centered within the fourth ventricle" suggests that this medulloblastoma originated in the fourth ventricle.

 2014
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
20130029 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is "post polycythemic myelofibrosis" reportable? See Discussion. The bone marrow biopsy showed post polycythemic myelofibrosis. JAK2 mutations were present confirming the diagnosis of post polycythemic myelofibrosis. The patient does have a history of polycythemia vera (PV).

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

Polycythemia Vera (PV) [9950/3] is reportable. The Abstractor Notes section in the Hematopoietic Database for PV indicates there are three phases of PV. The third phase is referred to as the "spent" or "post-polycythemic myelofibrosis phase". This patient appears to be in the third phase of PV. This would not be reported as a new primary if PV has already been reported.

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
20000852 Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation: What code is used to represent the histology "cystadenocarcinoma with multiple foci of high grade anaplastic and undifferentiated sarcoma"? See discussion. The case was presented at tumor conference. The physicians indicated that the patient would not have the same disease course as a patient with cystadenocarcinoma of the ovary. The physicians advised the use of a mixed histology code. However, there is no appropriate mixed histology code for cystadenocarcinoma, anaplastic carcinoma, and sarcoma. It doesn't seem as though these cases should be grouped and analyzed with cases having a single histology of cystadenocarcinoma.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology and Grade, Differentiation fields to 8440/34 [cystadenocarcinoma, anaplastic] because a combination code for the specified histologic type does not exist.

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
20051010 Primary Site/Priorities--Breast: When there are conflicting references to subsite in different reports, which report has priority? See Discussion. The clinical site of the palpable mass is outer quadrant. The pathologist states inflammatory breast cancer located in the central breast. Should the site be coded to C501 for central breast, C509 for inflammatory breast ca, or C508 for outer quadrant?

Code the breast subsite from the pathology report (C501, central).

The priority order for coding subsite from conflicting reports is

1. Pathology report

2. Operative report

3. Physical examination

4. Mammogram, ultrasound

The primary site of inflammatory breast carcinoma is coded to C509 when there is no palpable tumor.

 2005
20041019 EOD-Extension--Lung: Is this field coded to 10 [tumor confined to one lung] or 20 [Tumor involving main stem bronchus >= 2 cm from carina] when there is no mention of the mainstem bronchus and a lobectomy is performed? See Discussion. The clinical work-up shows a mass at the left medial apex extending into the left lung. No mention of the main stem bronchus. Because a lobectomy was performed, we assume, per Note 2, that the tumor was greater than or equal to 2 cm from the carina. For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Extension field to 10 [tumor confined to one lung] for the case example. The EOD-Extension code 20 [Tumor involving main stem bronchus >= 2 cm from carina] applies to tumors involving the main stem bronchus. 2004
20031084 Histology (Pre-2007)--Colon: What code is used to represent the histology "Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type?" See Description. The code 8144/3 is not valid for colon primaries. Should we code these as 8140/3 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS] or over-ride the error message?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code adenocarcinoma, intestinal type of the colon 8140 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS]. Do not use code 8144 for intestinal type adenocarcinoma in the colon.

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
20031094 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: How many primaries are coded and what code(s) is/are used to represent the histology "invasive ductal carcinoma with extensive spindle metaplastic change [metaplastic carcinoma] with a second, separate, tumor "invasive ductal carcinoma, moderately differentiated with extensive associated DCIS"? See Description. The comment on the pathology report states, "due to the associated DCIS this smaller lesion is felt to most likely represent a synchronous second primary." Is this two primaries, one coded 8575/33 and the other coded 8500/32 or is this a single primary with a combination code -- 8523/33?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Abstract as two breast primaries. Code to 8575/33 (metaplastic carcinoma) and 8500/32 (infiltrating duct carcinoma). There are two lesions with different histologic types.

Do not use code 8523 to combine separate tumors with different histologies.

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
20031089 Primary Site/Histology (Pre-2007)--Bone: How are these fields coded for a squamous cell carcinoma in bone? See Description. The consult path report says "I believe that there is definitely high grade malignant tumor in this amputation specimen, and that this tumor represents an invasive squamous cell carcinoma, which is extending into the bone and permeating in between the bone trabeculae. ... The fact that squamous cell carcinoma can arise from the sinuses of chronic osteomyelitis is well recognized."

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Based on the information provided, code the primary site as C40._ or C41._ [bone] because the tumor originated in the sinuses of chronic osteomyelitis. Code to the site in which the tumor arises. Override the SEER site/histology edits to allow this rare combination of bone and squamous cell carcinoma.

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
20100012 Date of diagnosis--Breast: How is the date of diagnosis coded when a mammogram describes only "suspicious calcifications" with a BIRADS category of 4 assigned and the suspicious calcifications are subsequently proven to be malignant on biopsy? See Discussion. The date of diagnosis is the date when cancer was first diagnosed by a recognized medical practitioner, whether clinically or microscopically confirmed. Ambiguous terminology used to determine reportability is listed in part I of FORDS pages 3-4. No BIRADS categories are included and, therefore, should not be used by the registrar to determine the earliest date of diagnosis. In addition, the term "suspicious for calcification" is not reportable, because calcification is benign condition, unless the physician describes it as malignant. Reference 46637, 12/29/2009 FORDS - In the last paragraph there is a statement that no BIRAD categories are listed...cannot be used to determine earliest date of diagnosis. Does the SEER Program follow this guideline? The date of diagnosis for this case is the date of the biopsy. There is no reportable diagnosis on the mammogram. 2010