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: 10/05/2024 22:21 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20110123

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Are the terms EBV positive B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder with or without the term "of the elderly" and iatrogenic EBV positive lymphoproliferative disorder reportable? See Discussion.

The only reportable term listed is "EBV positive B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder of the elderly." Are the following cases reportable?

  • Does the diagnosis of EBV positive B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder specifically have to include the expression "of the elderly" to be reportable? Is there an age range associated with the term "of the elderly"?
  • Is "iatrogenic EBV positive lymphoproliferative disorder" reportable?
  • Is a diagnosis of "EBV positive B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder" reportable when there is no further classification of the LPD as lymphoma?

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

  1. EBV positive B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder is reportable. Code EBV positive lymphoproliferative disorder as DLBCL [9680/3], the term "of the elderly" does not have to be part of the diagnosis.
  • The term "iatrogenic" simply means that there is no known cause for the disease. Iatrogenic EBV positive lymphoproliferative disorder is reportable.
  • EBV positive B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder is a synonym for DLBCL [9680/3]. You do not need to have the lymphoma (DLBCL) diagnosis.

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
20110122 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is histology coded to AML, NOS [9861/3] for a bone marrow biopsy with a diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia evolving from myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) if the cytogenetics revealed trisomy 13? See Discussion. This patient actually had no prior diagnosis of MDS. The bone marrow biopsy revealed AML evolving from MDS. Cytogenetics revealed trisomy 13 with no other abnormalities. Does the presence of a trisomy 13 change the histology to a more specific subtype of AML?

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

This should be accessioned as a single primary per Rule M8 which states to abstract as a single primary and code the acute neoplasm when both a chronic (MDS) and an acute (AML) neoplasm are diagnosed simultaneously or within 21 days AND there is documentation of only one positive bone marrow biopsy, lymph node biopsy, or tissue biopsy. Code the histology to 9895/3 [acute myeloid leukemia with myelodysplasia-related changes].

NOTE: When you search with quotation marks around the phrase, the database will only return results with that exact wording. To only return results for the expression trisomy 13, enter in the Heme DB. In this case, a search for "trisomy 13" returns no results. Therefore, it does not impact the coding of histology for this case.

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
20110121 MP/H Rules/Histology--Esophagus: Will the AJCC TNM 7 having separate stage groupings for squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma result in coding histology for a tumor of mixed squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma to squamous cell carcinoma because it has the poorer prognosis? See Discussion.

Per the CS Esophageal Schema, Note 4, there are now separate stage groupings for squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma. Should a tumor of mixed histopathologic type be classified as a squamous cell carcinoma?

Do NOT use the Collaborative Stage Manual to determine the histology code. For CS STAGING purposes only, coding should be based on the squamous cell carcinoma component of this tumor.

The Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual is the correct source for coding histology. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the following steps are used to determine the histology code:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For an esophagus primary, use the Other Sites Histo rules to determine the histology code because esophagus does not have site specific rules.

Start at Rule H8 because this is an invasive histology (assuming this is a single tumor). which states that one should code the appropriate combination/mixed code from Table 2 when there are multiple specific histologies.

Find Other Sites for Table 2 under the Terms & Definitions section of manual.

Locate the appropriate mixed code for squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma in column 1. Per column 3, the correct histology is adenosquamous carcinoma. Per column 4, the correct histology is 8560/3.

2011
20110120 Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: How is this field coded for a BILATERAL nipple sparing mastectomy given that SINQ 20110094 indicates that a nipple sparing mastectomy should be coded to 30 [subcutaneous mastectomy] but there is no code for bilateral subcutaneous mastectomies? The Surgery of Primary Site field reflects the type of surgery performed on the primary site. In this case, a nipple sparing mastectomy should be coded to 30 [subcutaneous mastectomy]. If the details of the case indicate this is a single primary involving both breasts, code removal of involved contralateral breast under the data item Surgical Procedure/Other Site. 2011
20110119 MP/H Rules/Primary Site--Bladder: How is the primary site coded when a patient is diagnosed with synchronous, non-invasive papillary urothelial carcinomas of the bladder and renal pelvis? See Discussion.

This patient was diagnosed with at least three non-invasive papillary urothelial carcinomas of the bladder in 11/09. The patient subsequently underwent a complete nephroureterectomy in 12/09 showing a single non-invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis.

Per the MPH Rule M8, this is a single primary. Is the primary site to be coded C659 [renal pelvis] or C689 [urinary system, NOS]?

Assign code C68.9 when multiple tumors are found in multiple urinary sites at the same time. 2011
20110118

Reportability--Colon: Is a polypectomy that is suspicious for invasive adenocarcinoma followed by a partial colectomy with no residual neoplasm reportable? See Discussion.

08/28/2009 Cecum biopsy showed an adenomatous polyp with focal areas suspicious for invasive adenocarcinoma.

SINQ 20071060 states a suspicious biopsy that is disproven by a subsequent surgical procedure is not reportable. That does not seem to apply in this case because the patient had a suspicious finding on a surgical procedure (polypectomy), followed by a second surgical procedure that was negative. Is it possible that the polypectomy removed the entire tumor and the suspicious diagnosis should be reported?

This case is reportable.

It is possible that the polypectomy removed the entire tumor. Invasive carcinoma in a polyp does not mean that is has invaded the stalk of the polyp. If the stalk is not invaded, all of the cancer may have been removed by a polypectomy.

 2011
20110116

MP/H/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code for "heterologous biphasic sarcomatoid carcinoma of the lung with prominent rhabdomyoblastic and adenoca differentiation"?

The expert pathologist recommends coding histology to 8980/3 [Carcinosarcoma] for this combination histology.

Expert consultation: The designation "carcinosarcoma" is given when the pathology shows differentiation in both the sarcomatous (rhabdomyoblastic) and carcinomatous (adenoca) elements. This is emphasized in the path for this case with the term "biphasic." The term "heterologous" mean that the sarcomatous component is of a type not normal to lung. Rhabdomyoblastic means skeletal muscle differentiation. Because skeletal muscle is not normally found in lung it is heterologous. If it were smooth muscle, it would be homologous because smooth muscle is found in lung (as a part of the bronchi).

 2011
20110115 MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How is micropapillary adenocarcinoma of the lung coded given that a literature search indicates that this is a distinct subtype of adenocarcinoma of the lung with poor prognosis? Code the histology to 8260/3 [papillary adenocarcinoma]. An expert pathologist states that the WHO notes micropapillary to be a pattern seen in papillary carcinomas, but does not specify it as a separate histologic type. 2011
20110111

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted for a patient with a history of right breast ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed in 2007 treated with bilateral mastectomies and a right chest wall mass excised in 2010 that revealed infiltrating ductal carcinoma? See Discussion.

The patient's right breast DCIS in 2007 was treated with bilateral mastectomies with negative lymph nodes and negative margins. The patient refused Tamoxifen at that time. In 2010 a right chest wall mass excision revealed infiltrating ductal carcinoma with negative axillary lymph nodes. The physician states this is a recurrence. Per MP/H rule M8 this invasive tumor must be abstracted as a new primary. Would the primary site of the 2010 tumor be coded to breast or chest wall given that the patient has a previous mastectomy?

This tumor in 2010 represents a recurrence; it is not a new primary. This second tumor would be coded as a new primary ONLY if the pathology report states that it originated in breast tissue that was still present on the chest wall. When there is no mention of breast tissue in a subsequent resection, the later occurring tumor is regional metastases to the chest wall (i.e., a recurrence of the original tumor).

In turn, this means that there was at least a focus of invasion present in the original tumor that was not identified by the pathologist. The behavior code on the original abstract must be changed from a /2 to a /3 and the stage must be changed from in situ to localized.

 2011
20110110

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Head & Neck: If a 1991 neuroesthesioblastoma [9522/3] of the nasal cavity has subsequent recurrences of the same histology but later "recurs" in 2008 with "sarcoma, NOS, high grade" on a biopsy and a "high grade fibrosarcomatous transformation of esthesioneuroblastoma" [8810/3] on resection, should the subsequent tumor be reported as a new primary if the clinician continues to refer to the tumor as a "recurrence"? See Discussion.

Are histologic transformations always recurrences of the original tumor?

Assuming the same primary site for the 2008 lesion, according to the current MP/H rules the high grade fibrosarcoma [8810/3] is a new primary per Head & Neck MPH rule 11 because it is a different histology.

The revised MP/H rules will include tables to define tumors that de-differentiate (transform) and recur with what is seemingly a different histology. Although the rules will be changed in the future, we must use the rules in place at this time for this case.

 2011