Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20130183 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a peripheral blood finding consistent with involvement by monoclonal, lambda-restricted mature B cell population with co-expression of CD5 and CD23 reportable if, immunophenotypically, the case is consistent with a chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma? See Discussion. |
Peripheral blood: Final diagnosis: Leukocytosis absolute lymphocytosis monoclonal, lambda restricted B-cell population w/co-expression of CD5 and CD23 absolute increase in CD4=helper T cells. See comment. Comment: Peripheral blood findings are consistent with involvement by monoclonal, lambda-restricted mature B cell population with co-expression of CD5 and CD23, which is immunophenotypically consistent with a chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma immunophenotype. However, the absolute monoclonal population is only 3.02k/ul. According to WHO criteria, in the absence of extramedullary tissue involvement, the monoclonal lymphocyte population must be greater than or equal to 5.0 k/ul. Therefore, in the absence of clinical evidence of extramedullary tissue involvement, the diagnosis is most consistent with a monoclonal B cell lymphocytosis. Review of initial analysis reveals well-defined groups of cells within lymphocyte, monocyte and granulocyte gates as defined by CD45 and sid-scatter characteristics (%'s are listed). Overall, peripheral blood findings are consistent with involvement by monoclonal, lambada-restricted B cell population with a chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma immunophenotype. |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph. This case is reportable. Code histology to 9823/3 [CLL/SLL]. Ambiguous terminology is used to accession cases (determine reportability) because it has been used for over 30 years to do so. Any deviation from using ambiguous terminology to determine case reportability would cause the reporting of incidence counts to vary. In this case, there was a reportable, ambiguous terminology diagnosis on peripheral blood that is "consistent with" involvement by chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) immunophenotype. The ambiguous terminology "consistent with" in the flow cytometry report is acceptable to determine reportability. Given that it is the only reportable histology mentioned in the scenario, it is also used to code histology. The instruction "Do not code histology based on ambiguous terminology" is intended to be used when there is a reportable NOS histology and reportable more specific histology stated in the diagnosis. Ambiguous terminology cannot be used to report the more specific diagnosis in cases of Heme & Lymphoid 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 |
|
|
20130184 | Reportability--Appendix: Are low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms reportable? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2022 A low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) is not reportable. The WHO classification designates LAMN with the behavior code /1 [uncertain whether benign or malignant]. |
2013 | |
|
|
20130185 | Reportability/Behavior: Is HGSIL (high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion) of the vulva or vagina reportable and is it a synonym for histology code 8077/2 [squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III]? |
For cases diagnosed 2018 and later HGSIL of the vulva or vagina is reportable. HGSIL is a synonym for squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III. |
2013 | |
|
|
20130186 | Grade: Can the FIGO grade be used to code the morphologic grade? See discussion. |
FIGO Grade is coded in CS SSF 7 in the Corpus Uteri schema. The SEER Manual does not address using FIGO grade for coding grade in morphology. |
Do not use FIGO grade to code the grade field. See the sentence below the table in Instruction #6 in the Grade Coding Instructions for cases diagnosed 2014 and later, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/grade/ |
2013 |
|
|
20130187 | Reportability: Is a clinically diagnosed Stage III malignant thymoma reportable when the post-neoadjuvant resection showed spindle cell thymoma? See Discussion. | A thymoma is described by the medical oncologist at the time of the initial diagnosis as a malignant thymoma, Stage III. The patient had neoadjuvant CAP chemotherapy followed by a resection. Following the resection, the pathologist stated the diagnosis was spindle cell thymoma. | A malignant thymoma is reportable. Based on the information provided, a reportable diagnosis (malignant thymoma) was made by a physician and the patient was treated for this diagnosis. Because there is no mention of the initial diagnosis being amended based on the resection specimen's pathology report, assume the initial diagnosis is still valid. | 2013 |
|
|
20130188 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is plasma cell neoplasm reportable? See Discussion. | A previously submitted question in 2012 stated this was reportable, but recent answers seem to indicate this is not reportable. Please clarify whether this is reportable or not. | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Plasma cell neoplasm is not reportable.
We apologize for the confusion that this has caused. The term "plasma cell neoplasm" was not included in the 2010 Heme DB and Manual. It was added to the 2012 Heme DB and Manual after repeated questions were received regarding this diagnosis. After further investigation, this term is being removed from the Manual and DB.
According to WHO, 'Plasma cell neoplasm' is an umbrella term that includes MGUS, plasma cell myeloma, solitary plasmacytoma of bone, immunoglobulin deposition diseases, extraosseous plasmacytoma, and osteosclerotic myeloma. Of these, only plasma cell myeloma, solitary plasmacytoma of bone, and extraosseous plasmacytoma are reportable. Physicians may use the term 'plasma cell neoplasm' when they are not sure what the specific disease is. Plasma cell neoplasm is not reportable; however, follow up on these types of patients is recommended because continued evaluation is likely to determine a more specific disease. A reportable neoplasm may be diagnosed at a later date.
Cases of plasma cell neoplasm diagnosed 2010 or later are not reportable. This change should not have taken place as a result of the update in the 2012 Manual. At this time SEER is not requiring registries to go back and review plasmacytoma or multiple myeloma cases that were collected based on this terminology.
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 |
|
|
20130189 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are the terms 'mass' and 'lesion' reportable terms for accessioning brain and CNS primaries? See Discussion. |
With respect to reportability, the SEER Manual mentions 'tumor' and 'neoplasm,' but not 'mass' or 'lesion.' The SEER MP/H Manual states tumor, mass, lesion and neoplasm are equivalent terms for determining multiple primaries, but does this apply to reportability? If not, what is the distinction? |
'Mass' and 'lesion' are not reportable terms for benign/borderline brain and CNS tumors. Reportable terms for benign/borderline brain and CNS primaries are 'tumor' and 'neoplasm.' These terms appear in the ICD-O-3. 'Lesion' and 'mass' do not appear in the ICD-O-3. Do not use the MP/H Manual to determine reportability; page 2 of the SEER Manual is the correct source for reportability instructions. |
2013 |
|
|
20130190 | Reportability: Is a thymoma, type B3 malignant and, therefore, reportable? See Discussion. |
Recent information received from a registrar/pathologist states the WHO classifies well-differentiated thymic carcinoma [8585/3] as a synonym for type B3 thymoma. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 2021 Thymoma, type B3 [8585/1] is not reportable. Well-differentiated thymic carcinoma [8585/3] is reportable. WHO lists well-differentiated thymic carcinoma as a synonym for type B3 thymoma, but indicates the behavior code differs as indicated above. See the applicable SEER manual for cases diagnosed 2021 and later. |
2013 |
|
|
20130191 | Systemic/Surgery Sequence--Bladder: How is the systemic treatment/surgery sequence field coded for a 2013 case if the patient has a TURBT followed by multi-agent chemotherapy, and then a cystoprostatectomy followed by post-operative multi-agent chemotherapy? | For cases diagnosed in 2012 and later, code 7 (surgery both before and after systemic therapy) seems like the most appropriate answer. However, previous SINQ entries 20091055 and 20071102 have conflicting answers regarding surgery before and after systemic therapy. Do these SINQ entries apply to a 2013 diagnosis? Would the systemic treatment/surgery sequence be coded 7 because this patient had surgery then chemotherapy followed by more surgery? Should the post-operative systemic treatment be ignored in coding the sequence in this case? | Code the Systemic/Surgery Sequence to 7 [surgery both before and after systemic therapy] for this case.
The answers to SINQ 20091055 and 20071102 do not apply to a case diagnosed in 2013. These answers were posted prior to code 7 becoming effective in 2012. |
2013 |
|
|
20130192 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Pleura: How is histology coded when the pathology report final diagnosis is "malignant neoplasm, compatible with malignant mesothelioma" if the COMMENT section of the pathology report indicates the tumor has a mixed epithelial and sarcomatoid pattern? See Discussion. | This case was discussed with a pathologist who feels the correct histology should be biphasic mesothelioma (9053/3) because there are both epithelial and sarcomatoid components to this tumor. However, applying the current MP/H Rules, the histology is coded to 9050/3 (mesothelioma, NOS) because the term "pattern" cannot be used to code a more specific histologic type for invasive tumors. If this truly is a biphasic mesothelioma, that data is lost for researchers because the current MP/H Rules fail to capture this information. Should the term pattern be used to code the more specific histology in this case? | Code the histology to malignant mesothelioma, NOS [9050/3]. Apply the MP/H Rules as written until they are revised. The word "pattern" and other terms will be reconsidered for the next iteration of the rules. | 2013 |
An official website of the United States government
