Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
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 |
|
|
20110084 | Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is histology coded to 9684/3 [malignant lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell, immunoblastic NOS] for a biopsy that reveals "diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, immunoblastic variant"? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code histology to 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma]. Code 9684/3 [malignant lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell, immunoblastic NOS] is obsolete for cases diagnosed 2010 and later per the Heme DB.
Under the Definitions section in the Heme DB, it states that this is a lymphoma with diffuse proliferation of large neoplastic B lymphoid cells with nuclear size exceeding macrophage nuclei, more than twice size of normal lymphocytes. Normal architecture of node or extranodal tissue replaced in diffuse pattern. Morphologic variants: centroblastic, immunoblastic, plasmablastic, T-cell/histiocyte-rich, anaplastic.
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 | |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20110109 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted when a patient is simultaneously diagnosed with multiple myeloma/plasma cell myeloma, plasmacytoma and plasma cell leukemia? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph. This is accessioned as one primary and the histology is coded to 9732/3 [multiple myeloma]. To arrive at this answer, it is important to first try to determine how many different unique neoplasms there are to correctly identify the number of primaries to report. Per the Heme DB, plasma cell leukemia is an obsolete term. The current term and histology code for this diagnosis is 9732/3 [plasma cell myeloma]. Plasma cell myeloma and multiple myeloma are synonyms per the Heme DB. Therefore, per Rule M2 a single primary exists when there is a single histology. That takes care of the multiple myeloma/plasma cell myeloma and plasma cell leukemia, but not the plasmacytoma. In checking the Heme DB, the terms plasma cell myeloma and multiple myeloma are not synonyms for plasmacytoma. Therefore, we are left to determine whether the multiple myeloma/plasma cell myeloma vs the plasmacytoma represents one or two primaries. Under the Transformation section of the Heme DB, it indicates that plasmacytoma (a chronic disease process) transforms to multiple myeloma (an acute disease process). Per Rule M9, abstract a single primary and code the acute histology when both a chronic and an acute neoplasm are diagnosed simultaneously. The histology is coded to the acute neoplasm when there is no information on the biopsy regarding which is the "later" histology. This update will be added to the Heme Manual. 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 | |
|
|
20110149 | Ambiguous Terminology/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are the histology and diagnostic confirmation to be coded when the pathology report's final diagnosis is "plasma cell dyscrasia consistent with plasma cell myeloma" and the physician subsequently states this diagnosis was plasma cell myeloma? See Discussion. |
Pathologists often use the diagnosis "plasma cell dyscrasia" followed by an ambiguous term such as "consistent with" or "favors" with a more specific histology such as "plasma cell myeloma." Per initial training for Hematopoietic, ambiguous terminology is not used to code the histology for Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms. Should the histology be coded as plasma cell dyscrasia (which is not found in the Heme DB or Manual) because the pathology report uses ambiguous terminology to describe the plasma cell myeloma? If the physician subsequently states the diagnosis is "plasma cell myeloma" in a note following the pathology, should the histology be coded as plasma cell myeloma based on that diagnosis as there was no ambiguous terminology used? How is the diagnostic confirmation coded for this case? Should this be a positive histology diagnosis (diagnostic confirmation code 1) if the pathology diagnosis uses ambiguous terminology only? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph. The histology is coded as Plasma cell myeloma [9732/3]. The diagnostic confirmation is coded to 1 [positive histology]. Under the Definitive Diagnostic Methods section in the Heme DB it indicates that a bone marrow aspiration and bone marrow biopsy are procedures used to diagnose this disease process. This patient's diagnosis was based on the pathology (presumably from a bone marrow biopsy). NOTE: This is a reportable case. Ambiguous terminology is used to accession cases (determine reportability) because it has been used for over 30 years to do so. Any deviation from using ambiguous terminology to determine case reportability would cause the reporting of incidence counts to vary. In this case, there was a reportable, ambiguous terminology diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma on the pathology report; as well as a reportable physician's statement/diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma. Ambiguous terminology, however, is not used to report a more specific diagnosis for the Heme & Lymphoid neoplasms. For example, if the pathology report final diagnosis was "Myeloproliferative neoplasm, probably Polycythemia Vera" the histology would be coded as myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable [9975/3]. The ambiguous terminology indicates that the genetic testing, immunophenotyping, etc., probably are not complete or are not diagnostic of the more specific disease. Wait to code the histology until there is a definite diagnosis given. 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 |
|
|
20110148 | First course treatment/Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be accessioned and how is treatment coded when follicular lymphoma diagnosed in December 2009 is treated with CHOP and a subsequent December 2010 diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma is treated with chemotherapy and a bone marrow transplant? See Discussion. | A follicular lymphoma [9690/3] involving multiple lymph nodes was diagnosed on 12/2/2009. The patient had no bone marrow involvement and was treated with CHOP as first course treatment. In October 2010, the patient was put on maintenance Rituxan but disease progression was noted in November 2010. A biopsy of a mesenteric lymph node in December 2010 showed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3]. The patient subsequently had chemotherapy and an autologous bone marrow transplant.
According to the Multiple Primaries Calculator in the Heme DB, the DLBCL is a new primary but the physician calls the diagnosis of DLBCL a transformation from the follicular lymphoma diagnosed in December 2009. |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case should be accessioned as two primaries: follicular lymphoma [9690/3] and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3] per Rule M10. Per Rule M10, abstract as multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm (follicular lymphoma) AND there is a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma) more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis.
Record the CHOP as the first course of treatment for the follicular lymphoma because this was the only treatment given for the chronic neoplasm (follicular lymphoma) prior to the transformation to the acute neoplasm (DLBCL). Record the chemotherapy and bone marrow transplant as first course treatment for the DLBCL.
As noted above, follicular lymphoma does transform to DLBCL. This "transformation" is actually a new disease. Follicular lymphoma is a disease in which the lymph nodes have a prominent follicular pattern; DLBCL is a disease with diffuse proliferation of large lymphoid cells. While it is true that follicular lymphoma will transform to DLBCL, this transformation indicates it becomes a different entity.
The DLBCL is coded as a second primary for several reasons: to determine the incidence of follicular lymphomas transforming to DLBCL; survival time can be calculated for the diagnosis of the more aggressive DLBCL; death will be attributed to the DLBCL (for mortality statistics) and not the follicular lymphoma
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 |
|
|
20110029 | DCO/Multiplicity Counter/Type of Multiple Tumors: How are these fields coded for an unknown primary reported as a DCO case? See Discussion. | Do DCO cases have default values for the Multiplicity Counter and Multiple Tumor Reported as One Primary fields? Should these fields be coded as 88 or 99?
In the data item pages for these fields, there is only a reference to see the NAACCR Death Clearance Manual. However, this manual does not provide an answer. There is guidance to use code 88 for unknown primaries but we noticed that SEER edits skip enforcing this requirement for DCO cases (see SEER IF205 and 206). |
For a DCO case reported as an unknown primary [C809], code Multiplicity Counter to 99 [Unknown if multiple tumors; not documented] and Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary to 99 [Unknown]. | 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 | |
|
|
20110145 | MP/H Rules/Recurrence--Skin: If a pathologist does not review the August 2008 slides, how many primaries are accessioned for a patient diagnosed and treated for a dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans of the left upper inner arm in August 2008 who subsequently had a "recurrence" noted in October 2010 located in the scar of the original primary? | Abstract as a single primary: dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans [8832/3] of the left upper inner arm [C446] diagnosed in August 2008.
The rationale for this answer was provided by subject matter experts. The physician specialists for soft tissue and bone replied as follows:
Low-grade sarcomas tend to recur locally. Because this tumor recurred in same area, i.e. scar of prior surgery, and recurred in this period of time, this is a local recurrence. Dermatofibrosarcoma Protuberans is a low grade tumor which can recur many years following tumor excision. |
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 |
An official website of the United States government
