Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20091084 | Primary site--Colon: How do you determine the correct subsite when there is conflicting information in different reports? Are there priority rules for coding subsite for sites other than Head and Neck? See Discussion. | The path report for a hemicolectomy says, " Specimen: left colon..." and the microscopic says, "...received in formalin designated left colon..." The Operative procedure report says, "Postoperative diagnosis - splenic flexure tumor." The text of this report says, "Mobilizing the splenic flexure mass was incredibly difficult..." and then goes on to describe exactly how and where it was resected. The discharge summary says adenosquamous carcinoma of the splenic flexure. SINQ20051010 says to use the pathology report first, but this was written before the new MP/H rules. | Use the operative report information to code primary site in this case. It is more accurate. The operative report is usually a better source of location information compared to the pathology report. The pathologist can only reiterate the location as it was reported to him/her. The 2007 SEER manual states "Unless otherwise instructed, use all available information to code the site," page 69. |
2009 |
|
|
20100106 | Reportability-Bladder: Is a case with a cytology diagnosis, "positive for malignancy, favor low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma" reportable if the diagnosis on a subsequent bladder biopsy showed only "urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential"? See Discussion. | On 11/23/09 the patient had urine cytology diagnosis "positive for malignancy, favor low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma." On 12/28/09, the bladder biopsy showed "urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential."
SINQ 20081086 only addresses the example of a positive FNA/biopsy followed by a negative resection. Would the previous decision hold for this case when a positive fine needle aspiration biopsy is followed by only a negative biopsy? |
This case is not reportable. The pathology proved the cytology to be incorrect. The pathologic diagnosis is the "gold standard." When cytology and pathology disagree, use pathology.
|
2010 |
|
|
20100073 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient is diagnosed on 4/7/10 by a bone marrow biopsy with myelodysplastic syndrome, refractory anemia (RAEB2) and on a 7/27/10 bone marrow biopsy with progression to acute myelogenous leukemia with 40% blasts (AML)? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Accession two primaries per Rule M10, the first is a chronic neoplasm RAEB2 [9983/3] and the second is an acute neoplasm AML, NOS [9861/3]. Rule M10 states abstract as multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed in a chronic phase (MDS RAEB2) and an acute disease (AML) is diagnosed more than 21 days later. This is the rule that fits your case.
There are several important pieces of information. There were two bone marrows biopsies; one confirmed the chronic disease and a second confirmed the acute disease. The dates of the bone marrows are more than 3 months apart. Because you have a chronic and an acute disease, Rules M8-M13 in the coding manual apply.
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. |
2010 | |
|
|
20100019 | Histology--Ovary: How is histology coded for an ovarian mucinous neoplasm of low malignant potential (borderline mucinous cystadenoma) that shows extensive intraepithelial carcinoma and focal microinvasion? See Discussion. | At surgery a 25 cm left ovarian mass is found adherent to the anterior abdominal wall. The final diagnosis per the pathology report is, "Mucinous neoplasm (26 cm) of low malignant potential (borderline mucinous cystadenoma) with extensive intraepithelial ca and focal microinvasion. Right ovary, fallopian tubes, uterus, omentum, biopsies of diaphragm, 28 para-aortic and pelvic LNS and peritoneal fluid are all negative for malignancy." | Histology code 8470/3 [mucinous cystadenocarcinoma] is the best choice in this case. There is a mucinous cystadenoma [8470/0] with intraepithelial carcinoma and focal microinvasion. 8470/3 comes as close as possible to the description of the tumor. | 2010 |
|
|
20100074 | Laterality--Melanoma: For a melanoma case, does the term "mid" imply that the tumor is in the midline when the site is the skin of back (trunk)? | Yes. When the location is described as mid-back or mid-chest with no indication of left or right, assign laterality code 5 [midline]. | 2010 | |
|
|
20100029 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Corpus uteri: How should histology be coded and how many primaries should be accessioned for an endometrial primary in which curettings showed malignant mixed mullerian tumor (carcinosarcoma) but hysterectomy specimen showed endometrioid adencarcinoma? See Discussion. | The pathology report COMMENT for the hysterectomy specimen stated that the previous curettage was reviewed. The findings are compatible with malignant mixed mullerian tumor. No residual features of malignant mixed mullerian tumor are found in the current resection, which shows FIGO grade I adenocarcinoma in the wall of the uterus. The malignant mixed Mullerian tumor appears to have been removed with the curettage. There is no information available regarding the number of tumors in these specimens. | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract a single primary. Rule M1 applies because there is no information on the number of tumors and there is no way to know whether the curettage sample was from a separate tumor or from the tumor in the hysterectomy specimen.
Apply rule H17 and code histology to 8980/3 for malignant mixed Mullerian tumor [Carcinosarcoma, NOS]. |
2010 |
|
|
20100113 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis reportable? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
No. This is not a reportable hematologic condition. When you do not find a hematologic or lymphoid condition listed in the Heme DB, it is not reportable. Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis is an uncommon hematologic disorder. The patient usually presents with fever, splenomegaly, and jaundice. Laboratory findings are lymphocytosis and histiocytosis. Pathology findings are hemophagocytosis.
Appendix F lists this term as non-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. |
2010 | |
|
|
20100088 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient has 2005 diagnosis of multiple myeloma diagnosed returns in 2010 with extramedullary plasmacytoma and a bone marrow biopsy showing plasma cell dyscrasia that is clinically stated to "consistent with a relapse of myeloma"? See Discussion. | Patient was diagnosed in 2005 with multiple myeloma and following stem cell transplant 2005 was in complete remission.
On 2/1/10 an excisional biopsy of a soft tissue right flank mass showed plasmacytoma. On 3/2/10 the bone marrow biopsy was stated to be consistent with plasma cell dyscrasia. An outside attending physician stated the bone marrow biopsy was consistent with a relapse of myeloma. There was no radiologic evidence of disease elsewhere as of Feb 2010, only the soft tissue right flank mass. Patient initially presented for post-op radiation to the right flank and was treated 3/29/10. On 8/6/10 a biopsy of a right perinephric mass was positive for plasmacytoma. Subsequent xray on 8/16/10 of the right tibia and fibula showed lytic lesion consistent with progression of myeloma.
Using the Hematopoietic Database, the plasmacytoma in 2/1/10 is a second primary. How do the rules apply to the perinephric soft tissue disease and right tibia lesion? Are they separate new primaries? Or is all of this simply a recurrence of the original 2005 diagnosis as the attending physician states? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Accession a single primary with the histology coded to 9732/2 [multiple myeloma]. The disease discovered in 2010 represents further advancement of former disease. Per the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB, it states that bone marrow involvement, lytic bone lesions, and bone tumor masses of plasma cells are common. Under the Recurrence and Metastases section in the Heme DB it further states that extramedullary (in tissue other than the bone) involvement is a generally a manifestation of advanced disease. This case is an example of such a situation.
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. |
2010 |
|
|
20100105 | Surgery of Primary Site--Brain and CNS: Is "debulking" of a primary brain tumor coded to 21 [subtotal resection of tumor] or 30 [gross resection of tumor]? | Assign code 21 [subtotal resection of tumor, lesion, or mass]. Debulking removes as much of the tumor volume as possible in cases where it is not possible to remove the entire tumor. Debulking should improve the effectiveness of subsequent radiation therapy and/or chemotherapy. | 2010 | |
|
|
20100102 | Behavior--Breast: How is behavior coded when a biopsy shows in situ carcinoma with a focus suspicious for invasion and a subsequent excision/resection shows only in situ carcinoma? | Code this case as in situ. The specimen from the excision/resection is the more reliable source for determining behavior, compared to a biopsy, especially in this case where the behavior is ambiguous on the biopsy. | 2010 |
An official website of the United States government
