Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20120009 | Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded when the pathology report states the morphologic features and immunophenotype of a low grade B-cell lymphoma are most compatible with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma or marginal zone lymphoma? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to 9591/3 [B-cell lymphoma, NOS] per Rule PH28 which states that one is to code the histology when the diagnosis is
There is only one non-specific histology code mentioned, low grade B-cell lymphoma. This term is synonymous with B-cell lymphoma, NOS.
Per the Multiple Primaries Calculator, when comparing the histology 9591/3 [B-cell lymphoma, NOS] and 9671/3 [lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma], it is the same primary. When comparing the histology 9591/3 [B-cell lymphoma, NOS] and 9699/3 [marginal zone lymphoma], it is the same primary.
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 | |
|
|
20120008 | MP/H Rules/Recurrence--Ovary: How many primaries are accessioned if a patient was diagnosed with ovarian serous carcinoma four years ago and currently has sacral and pelvic masses positive for serous carcinoma on biopsy? Should this be disease progression or a new primary? See Discussion. |
Should this be a new primary per the MP/H Rules (Other Sites, Rule M10) because the diagnoses were made more than one year apart? Or is the new disease metastasis? The pathologist did not compare the subsequent mass biopsies with the original pathology. Is a pathologist's comparison of slides the only criteria for determining recurrent disease? This case seems to fit the definition of metastatic disease rather than a recurrence, and therefore would not be a new primary. |
Accession a single primary, the original ovarian serous carcinoma. The MP/H Rules do not apply to metastases. Metastases: When cancer cells appear in other nodes or organs that are not the primary site they are metastatic cells. Discontinuous (separate from the primary tumor) masses or cells in regional lymph nodes, distant lymph nodes, or distant sites are always metastases. In this case, the sacral and pelvic masses are distant metastases. The pathologist does not have to compare cells to the original tumor slides; the discontinuous tumor mass/cells in any site other than the primary site are metastases. Recurrence: For a disease to recur there are several criteria that must be met. First and most important, the patient must have had a disease-free interval (a tumor cannot recur if it has always been present). The other criteria are: the "new tumor" has to occur in the original primary site, it must be the same histology as the original tumor, AND must meet the timing requirements in the MPH rules for that organ/site. |
2012 |
|
|
20120004 | Grade--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is grade coded for a malignant non-Hodgkin lymphoma, large B-cell type, with features consistent with T-cell rich variant? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code grade to 6 [B-cell] for the histology malignant non-Hodgkin lymphoma, large B-cell type, with features consistent with T-cell rich variant [9680/3]. Under the Definition section for histology code 9680/3 it states there are morphologic variants of the disease: centroblastic, immunoblastic, plasmablastic, T-cell/histiocyte-rich, anaplastic.
Rule G3 in the Heme Manual confirms the grade listed in the Heme DB under its Grade section for the histology 9680/3. While the patient presented with a variant of DLBCL that is T-cell/histiocyte rich, it is still a B-cell phenotype. The grade is coded accordingly.
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 | |
|
|
20120002 | Histology/Diagnostic confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are histology and diagnostic confirmation coded when a patient has a clinical diagnosis of lymphoma but a pathologic diagnosis of malignant neoplasm, NOS? See Discussion. |
This patient had CT scans showing extensive bilateral retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy suspicious for lymphoma and left axillary lymphadenopathy. Thin core biopsies were done of the left axillary lymph nodes and immunohistology pathology was read as malignant neoplasm with extensive necrosis. Flow cytometry analysis of the sample shows no definitive or sufficient CD45+ events for informative analysis. Karyotype analysis could not be performed on this specimen due to inadequate sample. FISH analysis using IGH break apart probe showed no evidence of clonal rearrangement in limited number of cells available for analysis. The physician's diagnosis is probable lymphoma, no further workup felt necessary because patient would not tolerate chemotherapy anyway and hospice was felt most appropriate care for patient.
The definitive diagnostic method for lymphoma, NOS is histologic confirmation, but the only histologic confirmation was of "malignant neoplasm with extensive necrosis." Should the histology and diagnostic confirmation be coded as lymphoma, NOS [9590/3] and imaging without microscopic confirmation [7] or malignancy, NOS [8000/3] and positive histology [1]? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to 9590/3 [malignant lymphoma, NOS] and the diagnostic confirmation to 7 [radiology and other imaging techniques without microscopic confirmation]. Per the Diagnostic Confirmation Coding Instructions for Heme and Lymphatic Neoplasms, use code 1 when ONLY the biopsy was used to diagnose the specific histology. The biopsy only confirmed a malignancy; the scan confirmed the specific diagnosis of lymphoma.
Note that a clinical diagnosis can be a definitive diagnostic method for malignant lymphoma, NOS. In this case, the biopsy was inadequate and a more specific diagnosis could not be made by histology. Because no further work-up was pursued, this NOS diagnosis of malignant lymphoma was a clinical diagnosis only.
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 |
|
|
20120001 | Multiple primaries/Recurrence--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are abstracted if a patient was diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in 2001 and was diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma involving the larynx in 2011? See Discussion. | Does the medical oncologist's statement that this is a second malignancy, rather than a recurrence, given the length of the disease-free interval, affect the number of primaries abstracted? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Abstract a single primary per Rule M2; a single histology is a single primary diagnosed. The histology code for both the 2001 and 2011 diagnoses is 9680/3[diffuse large B-cell lymphoma]. Case is coded as diagnosed in 2001.
The hematopoietic physician experts say that the issue with lymphomas is that the patient may be disease-free then recur years later. Even though years have passed, this is still a recurrence or relapse. Currently, there are no molecular markers that are able to distinguish "new primaries" from recurrences. There are also no established criteria for timing rules that could be used to determine a new primary from a recurrence.
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 |
|
|
20110155 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a patient shows evidence of "MDS as well as essential thrombocytosis and JAK2 mutation positive polycythemia vera" 18 years after a diagnosis of "thrombocytosis and probable polycythemia that progressed to probable myelofibrosis"? See Discussion | Per consultation: an 83 year old patient started on hydroxurea 18 years ago following a diagnosis of thrombocytosis and probable polycythemia. It appears the polycythemia progressed to probable myelofibrosis. The possibility of an MDS needs to be considered.
Problem list: Polycythemia with probable progression to myelofibrosis or MDS.
Bone marrow biopsy two weeks later shows some progression of dysmegakaryocytopoiesis. Patient has evidence of MDS, as well as essential thrombocytosis and JAK2 mutation positive polycythemia vera.
On follow-up visit six weeks later: Continue to manage patient with hydroxyurea.
An additional six months later: Diagnosis is polycythemia with thrombocytosis. |
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. Code the histology to 9920/3 [therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome].
The reportable diagnoses must first be separated from the non-reportable diagnoses mentioned in the consult. Thrombocytosis (NOS), polycythemia (NOS), and myelofibrosis (NOS) are not reportable terms. To verify this, look up each term in the Heme DB. No database matches list the preferred name or the alternative names as any of these NOS terms.
The reportable diagnoses are all from the post-bone marrow biopsy consult, "evidence of MDS, as well as essential thrombocytosis and JAK2 mutation positive polycythemia vera." The subsequent notes in the consult again only refer to this as non-reportable polycythemia (NOS) or thrombocytosis (NOS). Keep in mind that this patient has been undergoing treatment with chemotherapy (hydroxyurea) for many years for polycythemia (NOS); the patient was diagnosed with polycythemia, "about 18 years ago."
According to the Subject Matter Experts, as MDS progresses, it may manifest as several different subtypes, this is a part of the disease process and abstracting each subtype would result in over-reporting this disease. This patient has a complicated history. The consult information does not adequately document whether this patient's initial diagnosis of "polycythemia" was primary polycythemia (reportable) or a secondary polycythemia (not reportable). If the patient was initially diagnosed with a primary polycythemia 18 years ago the current diagnosis of "JAK2 mutation positive polycythemia vera" would not be a new primary. The manifestation of ET may be due to the progression of MDS. In either case, this patient does have a therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome which is the same primary as both PV and ET.
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 |
|
|
20110154 | Behavior--Breast: Is a breast biopsy diagnosis of "ductal carcinoma in situ with focal and very early stromal invasion" an invasive tumor with a behavior code 3? |
Code the behavior to /3 [malignant, invasive]. "Stromal invasion" means the cancer is invasive. "Stroma" is the supporting connective tissue around and between ducts. It is outside the duct basement membrane. If the tumor cells extend into the stroma, the proper behavior designation for the tumor is invasive. |
2011 | |
|
|
20110153 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is macrocytic anemia reportable? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Macrocytic anemia is not reportable. Anemia refers to a condition of having a low count of red blood cells. The term "macrocytic" refers to the enlarged size of the red blood cells. Macrocytic anemia is usually caused by vitamin deficiencies, alcohol use, medications or thyroid disorders.
See Appendix F: Non-Reportable List for Hematopoietic Diseases.
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 | |
|
|
20110151 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is "common variable immunodeficiency" which is also known as acquired hypogammaglobulinemia reportable? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph. Common variable immunodeficiency (acquired hypogammaglobulinemia) is not a reportable condition. Common variable immunodeficiency represents a group of approximately 150 primary immunodeficiencies that have a common set of symptoms but different underlying causes, both benign and malignant. The case is not reportable unless this immunodeficiency diagnosis is accompanied by a diagnosis of a cancer or a reportable hematopoietic or lymphoid neoplasm. See Appendix F: Non-Reportable List for Hematopoietic Diseases. 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 | |
|
|
20110150 | Ambiguous Terminology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: As ambiguous terminology is not used to code histology for Heme & Lymphoid primaries, how is the histology coded when a patient has a clinical diagnosis of "consistent with a myelodysplastic syndrome"? See Discussion. | The physician states the "patient's clinical picture certainly is most consistent with MDS." Several FISH probes were performed on peripheral blood, specifically looking for the 5q minus syndrome as well as other molecular rearrangements to suggest or confirm MDS. These studies came back as normal. The initial bone marrow also came back negative. The physician then states, "The suspicion was that this represented a myelodysplastic syndrome despite the normal cytogenetics. Additional studies performed on the date of the clinic visit included the FISH for the 5q minus syndrome as well as CD59 to exclude PNH. Both of these were negative. Therefore, at this juncture, the patient has a macrocytic anemia not yet requiring transfusion support with a normal white count and an elevated platelet count and a hypercellular bone marrow. This is certainly consistent with a myelodysplastic syndrome."
Per coding guidelines, ambiguous terminology is not used to code histology, only for reportability. What is the histology code for this case? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology as Myelodysplastic syndrome, unclassifiable [9989/3].
Ambiguous terminology is used to accession cases (determine reportability). While ambiguous terminology is generally not used to code a specific histology, it can be used to code histology if it is the .
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. For example, if the physician states this is a myelodysplastic syndrome, NOS, refractory thrombocytopenia. The correct histology would be MDS, NOS [9989/3] and not refractory thrombocytopenia [9992/3].
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 |
An official website of the United States government
