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: 09/12/2024 03:17 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20130083 Ambiguous terminology/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded if an FNA reveals high grade B-cell lymphoma, compatible with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and the treating physician states this is diffuse large B-cell lymphoma? See Discussion.

The FNA showed high grade B-cell lymphoma, morphologically compatible with diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Special studies state: Tumor cells are positive for Vimentin, CD45, and CD20, focally weakly positive for CD43; negative for Myeloperoxidase, CD99, AE1/AE3, CK7, CK20, S100, CD3, cyclin D1, CD34, CD5 and TTF1. The cellular findings and immunophenotype are compatible with large B-cell lymphoma.

The treating physician refers to this disease process and is treating the patient for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Should the histology be coded as B-cell lymphoma, NOS (9591/3) because both the FNA and the immunophenotyping use ambiguous terminology? Does the physician reference to the disease process as diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, Stage II-AE impact the histology used?

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

Code the histology to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3] because the physician states this is a DLBCL and is treating the patient accordingly. Although the pathology report was only compatible with DLBCL, there was a subsequent clinical diagnosis that confirmed a diagnosis of DLBCL. In addition, the patient was treated for 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
20100082 Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should a case be accessioned as MDS, NOS when a consult uses ambiguous terminology (e.g., probable MDS) to describe the disease process and the bone marrow does not confirm the consult diagnosis? See Discussion. A patient is stated to have "probable MDS" by a hematology oncologist consult during an admission. A bone marrow biopsy was also performed during this admission, the final diagnosis on the pathology report is, "anemia and thrombocytopenia." The patient was not seen again by a hematology oncologist; however the patient's cardiology states, "BM biopsy was not clear whether this is MDS or another etiology."

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

This is not reportable. In effect, the original diagnosis was a rule/out MDS diagnosis. The bone marrow biopsy performed as part of the initial workup, proved that rule/out diagnosis was not valid. The subsequent statement confirms the diagnosis is not clear.

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.

2010
20081079 Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Kidney: Is a case reportable if a biopsy diagnosis of "suggestive of oncocytoma, malignant neoplasm cannot be excluded" follows a CT scan that was read as "suspicious for carcinoma"? See Discussion. Pt is nursing home resident. CT abdomen/pelvis shows a "mass in the right kidney, highly suspicious for renal cell carcinoma". CT-guided needle biopsy performed with final diagnosis: "Neoplasm suggestive of oncocytoma. A malignant neoplasm cannot be excluded." No other information is available. This case is not reportable based on the information provided. The suspicious CT finding was biopsied and not proven to be malignant. "Suggestive of" is not a reportable ambiguous term. 2008
20081017 Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Leukemia: Is a 'suspicious peripheral blood smear' the same as a suspicious cytology? See Discussion. The final diagnosis on the path report for a peripheral blood smear is stated to be "suspicious for malignancy." The microscopic description states that the "lymphoid population raises the concern of chronic lymphocytic leukemia." Nothing further was done. Is this a reportable case? If so, should it be coded as a leukemia or a malignancy NOS?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Do not accession a leukemia case based only on a "suspicious" peripheral blood smear. If a confirmed diagnosis, clinical confirmation or further information becomes available later, accession the case at that time.

For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.

 2008
20081033 Ambiguous terminology: Is the phrase "malignancy is highly considered" reportable given that the phrase "considered to be malignant" is reportable per SINQ 20061094?

"Malignancy is highly considered" is not a reportable ambiguous term.

Diagnoses qualified by the phrase "considered to be malignant" are reportable because this phrase is interpreted as "This diagnosis is malignant."

 2008
20000244 Behavior Code--Bladder/Lymphoma: Should the "in situ" designation on a bladder primary's pathology report be ignored that states a diagnosis of "in situ lymphoma"? Ignore the in situ designation. You cannot assign an in situ behavior code to a lymphoma primary. The term or designation of "in situ" is limited to solid tumors; carcinoma and/or cancer. 2000
20041096 Behavior Code--Breast: How is this field coded for a "non-invasive Paget disease of the breast?" See Discussion. Historically, SEER collected Paget Disease of the breast with a behavior code of 3 [invasive]. There is no documentation to support this. The SEER EOD Manual only states that if the code is "05" [Pagets disease (without underlying tumor)], the behavior must be a 2 [in situ] or a 3 [invasive].

Code the behavior as /2 [in situ] for noninvasive Paget disease of breast. Noninvasive is a synonym of in situ.

If the pathology report documents that the Paget disease is in situ, the matrix principle in ICD-O allows you to change the behavior code to match the pathologist's statement.

 2004
20031080 Behavior Code/EOD-Extension--Bladder: How are these fields coded for a bladder tumor in which the pathologist states, "there is no definite invasion identified" but the urologist states the case as T1? See Description.

Patient presents with four bladder tumors, described as "each measuring close to 2 cm." A specimen was taken of only one of the tumors. The tops of the tumors were fulgurated, then vaporized methodically. No obvious tumor or residual was noted on re-inspection.

Pathology revealed papillary urothelial carcinoma, high grade, with no definite invasion identified. Small segments of muscularis propria were present. A comment read..."it is difficult to determine if lamina propria invasion is present due to marked necrosis and tissue fragmentation." Urologist staged this as AJCC cT2a, but based on the pathology findings changed it to cT1. The urologist insists this is invasive.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Because of the damage to the specimen from cautery and the insistence of the urologist that the tumor was invasive, code extension for this case to 15 based on the physician's TNM category of T1.

A T1 is invasive--code the behavior /3. The urologist is confident it is invasive, and will likely treat the patient accordingly.

 2003
20021046 Behavior Code/EOD-Extension--Bladder: If an in situ lesion of the urinary bladder involves the von Brunn nests, is it still in situ? See discussion.

Von Brunn nests: Compact, rounded aggregates of urothelial (transitional) cells in the lamina propria, with or without connection to the surface epithelium.

Urothelial (transitional cell) carcinoma in situ...may involve von Brunn nests...

Histologic Typing of Urinary Bladder Tumours, Second Edition, WHO, pp 12 & 21

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the Behavior Code and the EOD-Extension field according to the pathology report.

If the pathology report states the tumor to be noninvasive or in situ, whether or not von Brunn nests are involved, code behavior as 2 [in situ] and extension as in situ.

If the tumor is described as invasive and involves the von Brunn nests, code the EOD-Extension field to 15 [invasive tumor confined to subepithelial connective tissue] because code 15 includes extension to the lamina propria and von Brunn nests are within the lamina propria.

 2002
20071116 Behavior--Bladder: What behavior code is used for a TURB path specimen diagnosis of "non-invasive urothelial carcinoma, no muscle found, depth of invasion cannot be assessed" when the clinician stages the case as Ta? See Discussion. The SEER site specific coding module for bladder says, "If the only surgery performed is a TURB and if it is documented that depth of invasion cannot be measured because there is no muscle in the specimen, code the behavior as malignant and not in situ."

Assign behavior code 2 [in situ] based on the physician's stage Ta.

When no other information is available and the TNM designation is not available, use the instructions on page C-844 in Appendix C of the 2007 SEER manual as a default.

 2007