Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20110042 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: How is histology coded when the initial biopsies of retroperitoneal mass demonstrated non-seminomatous germ cell tumor, but after neoadjuvant chemotherapy the final diagnosis on the radical orchiectomy specimen demonstrated mature teratoma, NOS (not stated to be malignant)? See Discussion. | A large retroperitoneal mass was found on CT scan. A biopsy demonstrated non-seminomatous germ cell tumor. The biopsy was done at an outside facility. Neither the CT scan nor biopsy pathology report is available for review. Following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the retroperitoneal mass decreased to 12 cm. Subsequently, the patient had a right radical orchiectomy. The final diagnosis per the pathology reports was a 3.5 cm mature teratoma (NOS, not stated to be "malignant") of right testicle. The patient then had resection of the retroperitoneal mass and biopsies. Pathology showed the "excision" specimen contained 6 benign lymph nodes and two of the "biopsy" specimens showed non-seminomatous germ cell neoplasm with IHC findings suggestive of a mix of embryonal carcinoma and a lesser component of yolk sac tumor. | This is a reportable case. Even though the pathology from the orchiectomy stated mature teratoma, NOS, the presence of lymph node metastases proves that this tumor is malignant. Code the histology as 9065/3 [germ cell tumor non-seminomatous].
The majority of germ cell tumors show the presence of multiple histologies. While the original tumor showed only mature teratoma, there were obviously yolk sac cells that were not detected on the sections taken from the primary tumor. Both teratoma and yolk sac are germ cell tumors. This explains why the pathologist gave you the diagnosis of germ cell tumor. The classification of "non-seminomatous" simply means that there was no seminomas present in the mixture of germ cell histologies. |
2011 |
|
|
20110060 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: In the absence of any additional information regarding the disease process, is a diagnosis of "polycythemia" reportable if a patient is treated with phlebotomy? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
No. Polycythemia, NOS is not reportable.
Polycythemia (also known as polycythaemia or erythrocytosis) is a disease state in which the proportion of blood volume that is occupied by red blood cells increases. Blood volume proportions can be measured as hematocrit level. It can be due to an increase in the mass of red blood cells, "absolute polycythemia"; or to a decrease in the volume of plasma, "relative polycythemia".
The phlebotomy is a treatment for the excessive blood volume; therefore, a diagnosis of "polycythemia" without one of the modifying terms listed in the Heme DB under Alternative Names is not reportable.
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 | |
|
|
20110071 | Primary site: How is this field coded for an adenocarcinoma arising in a chronic perianal fistula without extension to the anal canal, but stated to arise in "ectopic rectal tissue"? See Discussion. | The patient underwent a resection of a perineal mass. Per review of slides it was stated to be "primary mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in a chronic perianal fistula." The adenocarcinoma was invasive into the dermal connective tissue and skeletal muscle, but there was no extension into the anal canal. The discharge diagnosis from the reporting facility called this adenocarcinoma of "ectopic rectal tissue in perianal area."
Should the primary site be coded to skin based on the dermal involvement and lack of anal or rectal involvement? Or, should the primary site be coded to rectum based on the physician's assessment that this adenocarcinoma arose in ectopic rectal tissue? |
For cases diagnosed 2007-2014: Code the Primary Site field to C210 [Anus, NOS]. This is an unusual and rare presentation. According to our expert pathologist, "There is no ideal site code [for] this case. I would code to C210. In this location it can at least be located by anyone who wants to get a look at such lesions. Because of the unusual location of this tumor, I would like to be able to code it to perineum, but it will be totally lost in those site codes as they represent extensive areas beyond perianal (skin of trunk, soft tissue of pelvis, and pelvis, respectively)... I would not code to rectum [because it would be] lost among too many primary rectal carcinomas." |
2011 |
|
|
20110082 | First course treatment/Other therapy--Skin: How is PUVA [psoralen (P) and long-wave ultraviolet radiation (UVA)] coded when used for skin primaries such as melanoma and mycosis fungoides? | Code PUVA as "Other treatment" with Code 1 - Other. We do not have a code specifically for ultraviolet radiation. | 2011 | |
|
|
20110130 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: Should a July 2011 left lower lobe mass with adenocarcinoma be accessioned as an additional primary per Rule M7 or as the same primary per Rule M12 if it is diagnosed subsequent to a September 2010 right upper lobe/right middle lobe lobectomy with clear cell adenocarcinoma in one nodule and adenocarcinoma in another nodule? See Discussion. | 09/2010: RUL/RML lobectomy: Two separate nodules. One nodule showed clear cell adenocarcinoma, and the other showed adenocarcinoma (NOS). Potential brain metastasis per scan. Patient also received chemotherapy. These are two separate primaries per rule M11.
07/2011: New LLL mass + satellite nodule, biopsy of LLL mass compatible with adenocarcinoma (NOS). Is the 07/2011 an additional new primary per rule M7? Or is it the same primary as the 09/2010 adenocarcinoma per rule M12? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: The 2011 diagnosis of adenocarcinoma, NOS in the left lower lobe lung is a separate primary.
The steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a lung primary, use the Lung Multiple Primary rules to determine the number of primaries.
The 2010 right lung bi-lobectomy showed two separate tumors that were determined to be two primaries: clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] and adenocarcinoma, NOS [8140/3]. The histology of the new left lung mass is adenocarcinoma, NOS [8140/3].
Start at Rule M3 using the MULTIPLE TUMORS module because this patient has more than one tumor. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module (i.e., from Rule M3 to Rule M12 in this case). Stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing. This patient has two tumors in each lung with ICD-O-3 histology codes that are different at the second (xxxx) digit. Abstract the LLL adenocarcinoma as a new primary [C343, 8140/3].
The patient has two tumors in each lung. The right lung showed adenocarcinoma and clear cell adenocarcinoma. The two tumors in the left lung were both adenocarcinomas. Clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310] on the right is different at the second digit from adenocarcinoma [8140] on the left. Rule M12 cannot be applied to this case, because Rule M7 is the first rule that applies to this case when processing the rules in consecutive order.
|
2011 |
|
|
20110023 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are reported in a patient with a November 2009 diagnosis of refractory anemia and a 10/25/2010 biopsy diagnosis of refractory anemia with excess blasts type 2 with ringed sideroblasts that the clinician indicates actually demonstrates progression to AML? See Discussion. | Refractory anemia, NOS diagnosed in November 2009. The diagnosis on a bone marrow biopsy performed on 10/25/10 is myelodysplastic syndrome - refractory anemia with excess blasts type 2 with ringed sideroblasts. Per the medical oncologist, in the 12/16/10 clinic note it states, "Pt underwent bone marrow biopsy on 10/25/10 and ultimately this marrow demonstrates progression to AML.
When applying the Hematopoietic Rules, the refractory anemia, NOS and the myelodysplastic syndrome - refractory anemia with excess blasts type 2 with ringed sideroblasts is the same primary. However, the refractory anemia NOS and the AML are multiple primaries. |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
First, note that myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) is a term that includes a number of diseases. Refractory anemia, NOS and refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts are types of MDS. These two diseases are an NOS and a more specific disease, which is accessioned as one primary per Rule M7.
Next, assess the change from refractory anemia to AML. In checking the Heme DB, AML is listed under transformations for refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts. This patient has a chronic disease (refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts) and an acute disease (AML). Per Rule M10, abstract as multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed in a chronic (less aggressive) phase AND second diagnosis of a blast or acute phase more than 21 days after the chronic 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 |
|
|
20110041 | Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is this field coded when the final diagnosis for excisional biopsy of two cervical lymph nodes shows classical Hodgkin lymphoma, histologic subtype cannot be determined, but the COMMENT section of the report indicates there are features of both lymphocyte rich and nodular sclerosis subtypes? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule PH28, code histology to 9650/3 [Classical Hodgkin lymphoma]. This rule states to code the non-specific (NOS) histology when the diagnosis is one non-specific (NOS) histology and two or more specific histologies.
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. http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph. |
2011 | |
|
|
20110141 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should a 2010 diagnosis of central nervous system diffuse large B-cell lymphoma be abstracted as a new primary when the patient has a history of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma in the 1980's and a 1991 history of DLBCL of the bowel (NOS)? See Discussion. |
Patient presents in 2010 with the history of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma and DLBCL. The patient is stated to have been in remission from the DLBCL. However, a current CT scan of the brain is consistent with central nervous system DLBCL. Cerebrospinal fluid cytology is consistent with DLBCL. The CT scan of the torso showed no lymphadenopathy or suspicious findings. Does the recently discovered DLBCL disease process in the central nervous system represent a new third primary? Or is this disease recurrence/progression? The patient was referred to a cancer center and there is no additional information available regarding further workup or treatment. |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph. The patient only has two primaries: cutaneous T-cell lymphoma diagnosed in the 1980s and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma of the bowel diagnosed in 1991. The DLBCL of the brain does not represent a new primary. It is progression of the 1991 disease process with the same histology. Under the Alternate Names section in the Heme DB, one synonym for DLBCL is "Primary DLBCL of the CNS." The histology code for both the 1991 bowel neoplasm and the current CNS neoplasm is 9680/3. Per Rule M2, a single histology is a single 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. |
2011 |
|
|
20110050 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries: How many primaries are to be abstracted when a patient was initially diagnosed with epithelioid sarcoma in 2003, underwent multiple resections, radiation, and ultimately partial amputation of the limb in 2010, each with margins positive for residual epithelioid sarcoma? See Discussion. |
In Dec. 2003 a patient was diagnosed with epithelioid sarcoma of the left palm. In Jan. 2004 the patient had an excision with skin graft and positive margins. Amputation was recommended but the patient chose radiation instead. In May 2006 the patient had a local excision positive for epithelioid sarcoma followed by an amputation of the thumb and index finger with positive margins. Then in April 2010, the patient had an amputation of the remnant of left hand up to the middle third of the forearm. Again, there was residual distal invasive tumor positive for epithelioid sarcoma. |
This is a single primary, epithelioid sarcoma of the left upper limb, diagnosed in 2003. The sarcoma progressed over the years and the patient was never free of disease -- positive margins were documented at each surgical event. Per the 2004 SEER Manual coding rules in place at the time of pre-2007 recurrences, they would not be multiple primaries according to Rule 5, exception 1. The occurrence in 2010 is also not a new primary. The steps used to arrive at this decision are as follows. Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a soft tissue primary, use one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Other Sites MP rules to determine the number of primaries because soft tissue primaries do not have site specific rules. Start with the UNKNOWN IF SINGLE OR MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module that applies for this case. In this module there is only one rule. . This patient was never disease free and it is unknown if this tumor was the same tumor (single tumor) or multiple tumors. Abstract a single primary for this patient. |
2011 |
|
|
20110058 | Date of diagnosis/Flag: Will the Date of Diagnosis Flag ever be used if the instructions for coding Date of Diagnosis are followed? See Discussion. | If an abstractor follows the instructions for coding the Date of Diagnosis and can at least estimate a year of diagnosis, in what scenario will the Flag be used?
Per the 2010 SEER Manual,
Page 49 Date of Diagnosis, second paragraph, "Regardless of the format, at least Year of diagnosis must be known or estimated. Year of diagnosis cannot be blank or unknown." The manual gives the following guidelines for coding diagnosis date/flag:
Page 50, Coding Instructions: 3. If no information about the date of diagnosis is available a. Use the date of admission as the date of diagnosis b. In the absence of an admission date, code the date of first treatment as the date of diagnosis.
Page 51, Coding Instructions: 9. Estimate the date of diagnosis if an exact date is not available. Use all information available to calculate the month and year of diagnosis.
Page 53, Date of Diagnosis Flag, Coding Instructions: Always leave blank. Date of Diagnosis will always be a full or partial date recorded. |
The date of diagnosis flag should always be blank. | 2011 |
An official website of the United States government
