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: 05/07/2026 15:43 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20110066 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be accessioned for a patient with a history of CLL undergoing chemotherapy who is subsequently diagnosed on a liver biopsy with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (Richter transformation)?

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

Abstract the diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (Richter transformation) as a second primary per Rule M10. Rule M10 states to abstract as multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm (CLL) AND there is a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm (the diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (Richter transformation)) more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis.

"Richter transformation," also known as "Richter syndrome," is a term that indicates CLL has transformed to DLBCL. Richter syndrome is listed under the Alternate Names section in the Heme DB for DLBCL (9680/3).

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
20110020 Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is cancer status to be coded when a patient diagnosed with MDS, undergoes treatment, but the MDS subsequently transforms to AML? If the bone marrow no longer shows evidence of MDS, the cancer status for the MDS is disease-free. When cancer status is coded as disease-free (NED), it means that currently there is no clinical evidence of this disease (MDS). 2011
20110073 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Sarcoma: Does a prior clinical diagnosis of a metastatic deposit for a previously diagnosed sarcoma have priority if the diagnosis on a subsequent resection (18 months later) indicates it is also a sarcoma but does not state it represents metastasis from the original sarcoma primary? See Discussion.

1/28/08 Patient was diagnosed with spindle cell sarcoma in the right gluteus muscle. Metastatic tumors were found in a vertebral body and in the lung. Chemotherapy was started.

4/22/08 PET scan done to evaluate response to chemo. The primary tumor had increased in size. New mass in the left thigh that was highly suspicious for metastasis found. (The left thigh tumor was not accessioned at that time as it was described as a metastatic tumor.)

7/3/09 Left thigh tumor was resected and path revealed spindle cell sarcoma. There was no mention that it represented metastasis.

Does the left thigh tumor represent a new primary per rule M12? Or does the previous clinical description of the left thigh tumor representing metastasis have priority?

this is a single primary per Rule M1. According to our expert pathologist, "if multiple solid tissue tumors are present (sarcomas), then almost always there is one primary and the rest are metastases. There are infrequent occasions of multifocal liposarcoma or osteosarcoma occurring, but the patient would be treated as a patient with metastatic disease."

The steps used to arrive at this answer are:

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.

Go to the UNKNOWN IF SINGLE OR MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M1.

Rule M1 states, "It is not possible to determine if there is a single tumor or multiple tumors, opt for a single tumor and abstract a single primary." Given the information from the expert pathologist, this case should be reported as a single primary applying this rule.

2011
20110135

MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: Per SINQ 20110115, why is micropapillary adenocarcinoma of the lung coded to 8260 [papillary adenocarcinoma] rather than 8050 [papillary carcinoma]?

The histology codes for lung tumors are based on the World Health Organization Classification of Lung Tumors. Chart 1 in the MP/H Lung Equivalent Terms, Definitions, Charts, Tables and Illustrations (2007 MP/H Rules Manual) illustrates the WHO Classification of Lung Tumors.

Using Chart 1, note that papillary adenocarcinoma [8260] is located under the Adenocarcinoma (NOS) branch. The histology in question was stated to be "micropapillary adenocarcinoma" and not "papillary carcinoma." Papillary carcinoma, NOS [8050] is not actually located on the chart. However, papillary squamous cell carcinoma is listed under the Squamous Cell Carcinoma, NOS branch, histology code 8052.

Next, look up papillary carcinoma [8050] in the Morphology - Numerical listing section of the ICD-O-3. Papillary carcinoma, NOS is a Squamous Cell Neoplasm. (Refer also to SINQ 20091040.)

The key word used to determine the appropriate histology in this case is "adenocarcinoma." This is a papillary adenocarcinoma and not a papillary squamous neoplasm.

 2011
20110040

Reportability--Melanoma: Is a pathology report with a final diagnosis stating only non-reportable terms, followed by a re-excision pathology report that indicates "no residual melanoma" reportable? See Discussion.

Is a case reportable if the final diagnosis on an initial pathology report states a non-reportable term (e.g., evolving melanoma, early/evolving melanoma or melanocytic nevus) and followed by a subsequent re-excision pathology report stating there is "No residual melanoma"? There is no mention in the clinical history on the subsequent pathology report that the diagnosis was thought to be melanoma following the first procedure. The first mention of the reportable term was in the final diagnosis of the subsequent pathology report that stated "no residual melanoma."

No. This case is not reportable based on the information provided. "No residual melanoma" is not diagnostic of a reportable neoplasm.

We recommend that you try to obtain more information from the clinician/pathologist for this case due to the poor documentation. Check for any additional resection performed.

 2011
20110045 Reportability--Ovary: Is immature teratoma of the ovary reportable if a subsequent comment states that "the teratoma shows immature neuroepithelium, but no malignant elements"? There is conflicting information for this case. The final diagnosis conflicts with the comment. Go back and check with the physician to clarify his/her intent. If no further information can be obtained, the final diagnosis is preferred over the comment. This case is reportable based on the final diagnosis: "immature teratoma." 2011
20110048 First course treatment--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is a "donor lymphocyte infusion" that is used in the treatment of CLL coded?

Donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) is coded as immunotherapy. The lymphocytes are donated by the same person who donated the original stem cell transplant. The lymphocyte infusion creates an immune response in which the T-cells are activated to attack the cancer cells.

See "Treatments" for CLL/SLL (9823/3)

 2011
20110009 Diagnostic confirmation/Date of diagnosis--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are these fields coded for a 2/11/10 negative bone marrow biopsy with cytogenetic abnormalities if the physician makes a clinical diagnosis of refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia on 2/25/10? See Discussion.

2/11/10 bone marrow biopsy revealed "mild trilineal dysplastic changes in conjunction with chronicity of cytopenias is worrisome for MDS." Cytogenetics are positive for 5q deletion. Clinicopathologic correlation required for final diagnosis. On 2/25/10 the physician confirms a diagnosis of refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia.

Is the date of diagnosis 2/11/10 with diagnostic confirmation of 3 or 2/25/10 with diagnostic confirmation of 8?

The date of diagnosis is 2/25/10 and diagnostic confirmation is coded to 8 [clinical diagnosis only].

As the cytogenetics state, you need clinicopathologic correlation to get confirm a reportable diagnosis. There is no reportable diagnosis from the bone marrow biopsy. The cytogenetics were done (the pathologic part) and then the physician confirmed refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia [9985/3] (the clinical part). The diagnostic process and the determination of a reportable diagnosis were completed when the clinician made the statement that this is refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia.

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
20110054 First course treatment/Other therapy--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a transfusion coded as first course treatment for multiple myeloma? See Discussion. Per the SEER Manual, First Course for Leukemia and Hematopoietic Diseases definitions, Other Hematopoietic states that transfusions are coded as "other" in the Other Treatment fields. Does this mean that a transfusion for chemotherapy-related anemia is coded as treatment for patients with multiple myeloma? Do not code transfusions as treatment. According to hematopoietic specialty physicians, transfusions are given for such a variety of reasons (anemia, etc.) and should not be coded as other treatment. 2011
20110132 Reportability/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a diagnosis of "small B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoproliferative disorder" reportable? If so, how is the histology to be coded? See Discussion. The final diagnosis of a bone marrow biopsy dated 10/99/2010 was "small B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoproliferative disorder." The differential diagnosis includes atypical small lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukemia and marginal zone lymphoma. Mantle cell lymphoma is very unlikely based on BCL1 negativity. Lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma is also excluded due to the absence of a plasma cell component (CD138 negative).

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

Yes. The term "small B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoproliferative disorder" is reportable. Code the histology to 9591/3 [non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS] per Rule PH28. When there is a diagnosis of lymphoproliferative disorder and any lymphoma, code the lymphoma histology.

The information in the discussion is reflective of the difficulty in diagnosing hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. The differential diagnosis indicates that a number of possible specific lymphoma/leukemia diagnoses that have been ruled out, which explains why the final diagnosis is non-Hodgkin, NOS.

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