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: 10/20/2024 08:23 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20081040 Reportability/Histology--Hematopoietic: If a JAK2 positive myeloproliferative disorder is reportable, how should histology be coded?

Please discuss the significance of JAK2 point mutation.

Example: Bone marrow biopsy showed hypercellular marrow with increased megakaryocytes associated with JAK2 point mutation consistent with myeloproliferative syndrome. Path comment: While the morphologic changes would be compatible with a myeloproliferative syndrome, they are not specific for this as similar findings can be seen in reactive conditions. However, a molecular diagnostic test demonstrated a positive JAK2 point mutation which would support the diagnosis of myeloproliferative syndrome. In summary, the combined histologic and molecular diagnostic findings support a myeloproliferative syndrome. The differential diagnosis would be between polycythemia vera and essential thrombocythemia. Subsequent clinical diagnosis: polycythemia vera.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Follow the instructions in the SEER manual on pages 1-4 to determine reportability.

Code the histology using all information available for the case. If the clinician reviews the case and states a particular histology based on his/her review, code that histology.

The clinician has access to all of the information available for this case. He/she uses his/her expertise to form a clinical diagnosis.

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
20081039 Diagnostic Confirmation/Histology--Hematopoietic: How are these fields coded when the final pathologic diagnosis for a bone marrow biopsy differs from the final clinical diagnosis of a hematopoietic disease? See Discussion.

Frequently, pathology reports describe hematopoietic diseases using ambiguous terms. Flow cytology and cytogenetics may be obtained. It appears that the clinician is the person who pulls all the information together for a diagnosis.

Example: Bone marrow biopsy is most compatible with chronic phase myeloproliferative disease. Path comment: Differential would include CML. Outside hematology report indicates an elevated peripheral WBC, primarily neutrophils. Flow cytometry showed 1.0 % of the white cells are myeloid blasts of abnormal phenotype, additionally finding 7.3 % basophils. Flow reported peripheral blasts at 1.2 % and peripheral basophilia. Cytogenetics report showed abnormality with trisomy of chromosomes 13 and 21. This finding is consistent with a clonal abnormality suggestive of acquired disease. Results were consistent with the absence of the t(9,22)(q34;q11) translocation or fusion product associated with CML. Subsequent clinical impression: Bone marrow evaluation most consistent with CML. Overall features most consistent with CML.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field as 1 [positive histology]. Code the ICD-O-3 morphology based on the clinician's statement.

The code in Diagnostic Confirmation pertains to the best method used to confirm the presence of cancer over the entire course of the disease. Therefore, if a bone marrow report confirms cancer, code 1 [positive histology] in Diagnostic Confirmation.

Code the histology using all of the information available. The clinician has access to all of the information relating to this case. The pathologist had only the bone marrow. Code the histology recorded by the clinician.

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
20081038

Histology/Primary site: What is the correct histology code for sarcomatoid carcinoma of the mandible diagnosed in 2007? See Discussion.

Left mandible resection: Malignant tumor, favor high grade sarcomatoid carcinoma. Please see comment.

Comment: Considering the focal stain with P63 and the consult from Mayo Clinic done on the previous biopsy, the diagnosis of sarcomatoid carcinoma is more likely.

Gross: left mandible resection...sectioning reveals a...mass that has replaced the majority of the mandibular bone and is at the medial, anterior lateral and posterior soft tissue margins and comes to within 2.4 cm of the anterior boney resection margin and 1.9 cm of the smooth articular temporal mandibular joint surface.

The combination of C411 and 8033/3 is impossible (with no override available).

Code the primary site C031 [Mandibular gingiva]. Code the histology 8033 [sarcomatoid carcinoma]. This tumor originated in the mandibular gingiva and invaded the bone (mandible) -- It did not originate in the bone. This type of tumor does not originate in bone.

 2008
20081037 Extension/CS Extension--Prostate: Do the prostate guidelines used for EOD still apply to cases diagnosed 2004 forward?

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.For cases diagnosed 2004 and forward, refer to the Collaborative Staging manual.

The 2004 CS guidelines have been agreed upon by all standard setters and have been reviewed by the COC/AJCC urologists.

Note: Do not use the SEER EOD guidelines with Collaborative Staging.

 2008
20081036 MP/H Rules--Breast: Is inflammatory breast cancer always one primary per lifetime? Or is a subsequent inflammatory breast cancer a second primary if diagnosed more than five years later? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, a diagnosis of inflammatory breast cancer more than five years after a previous diagnosis of inflammatory breast cancer is a separate (new) primary. See rule M5 in the Breast Multiple Primary Rules. 2008
20081035 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What histology code is used for a single tumor, micropapillary carcinoma with components of mixed ductal and lobular carcinoma?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H16 and assign code 8522 [Duct and lobular carcinoma].

Micropapillary is specific duct type (see Table 1).

 2008
20081034 Race, Ethnicity/Spanish Surname or Origin: Which Spanish Surname List (from 1980 census or 1990 census) would SEER prefer us to use to code 7 in Spanish Surname or Origin? See Discussion. In the SEER coding manual, it refers to "a list of Hispanic/Spanish names" (5e), but does not specify which one to use. Again, for the Computed Ethnicity field, which Spanish Surname List does SEER prefer us to use? Determine which list is better suited for your geographic area. If the 1990 list is used, determine the probability cut-off that seems most reasonable for your geographic area. 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
20081032 Radiation Therapy--Breast: If hospital records indicate that a mammocyte intracavitary radiation therapy device was placed in the breast, but there is no follow-up documentation of radiation actually being given, should we code radiation 2 (implants) or 8 (recommended, unknown if given)? Assign code 8 [recommended, unknown if administered]. Check this case periodically, and others coded 8. Update if further information becomes available. 2008
20081031

MP/H Rules--Breast: How many primaries are abstracted if a mastectomy specimen reveals two separate invasive tumors:

#1: Invasive apocrine carcinoma, poorly differentiated, 1.2cm, (9 o'clock). -Apocrine ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), high-grade with comedo necrosis; 2.0cm (9:30 o'clock).

#2: Invasive ductal carcinoma, well-differentiated, 1.0cm (12:30 o'clock). -Minor component of DCIS, low-grade? See Discussion.

 In the MP/H Rules, Table 1 lists apocrine as a type of intraductal carcinoma. Apocrine does not appear in Table 2, the list of specific duct carcinomas. If Apocrine is a type of ductal carcinoma, then Rule M11 would make this a single primary. If it is a single primary, what is the histology?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Using rule M11, there is one primary in the left breast. Apocrine is a specific duct carcinoma. To make this more clear, apocrine will be added to Table 2 in a future revision.

To code the histology, go to the multiple tumors module and start with rule H20. Stop at rule H29 and code the histology with the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code, 8500/3.

 2008