Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20100112 | Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is C448 [overlapping lesion of skin] or C449 [skin, NOS] the appropriate site code for a 2008 diagnosis of mycosis fungoides involving over 40 percent of the skin surface, including both upper and lower extremities and trunk? | Code the primary site to C449 [skin, NOS]. The code C448 should be used when there is a single overlapping lesion that includes all the disease. The patient has extensive skin coverage involving multiple skin subsites (upper and lower extremities and the trunk), but it is unlikely there is ONE plaque (one lesion) overlapping all these different skin subsites. The disease has more likely presented as multiple plaques (lesions) in these different areas. | 2010 | |
|
|
20100006 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Kidney: In a patient with a history of renal cell carcinoma, would a new primary be accessioned per Rule M10 for a soft tissue mass in the renal fossa not stated to be a metastasis but that was referred to as recurrent renal cell carcinoma, clear cell per the excision pathology report? See Discussion. |
This patient was diagnosed with clear cell carcinoma of the right kidney in 2003, treated with nephrectomy. The tumor was limited to the kidney. An FNA of the pancreas in 11/07 was consistent with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. In 2009 the patient was diagnosed with a right renal fossa mass by CT. The mass was excised on 8/26/09 and showed, "recurrent renal cell ca, clear cell." The path specimen was labeled as, "soft tissue, rt renal fossa." The original 2003 slides were not reviewed and the renal fossa mass was not described as being metastatic. If the renal fossa soft tissue mass is a new tumor, the MP/H rules for Other Sites directs you to code it as a new primary per rule M10 [Tumors diagnosed more than one (1) year apart are multiple primaries]. Would this be a new soft tissue tumor per rule M10? Or would this be a recurrence of the original kidney primary? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: This is not a new primary. The patient has metastatic disease from the 2003 kidney primary. Clear cell carcinoma metastasized to the pancreas in 2007 and to the right renal fossa in 2009. |
2010 |
|
|
20100011 | Reportability: Should a benign gangliocytic paraganglioma [8683/0] be a reportable (malignant) tumor based on the presence of lymph node metastases? See Discussion. |
"Resection, periampullary duodenum: Gangliocytic paraganglioma, with metastasis to one large periduodunal lymph node. Six other small lymph nodes negative. COMMENT: The primary tumor in the duodenum is made up mainly endocrine cell component. This component appears to have metastasized to a periduodenal lymph node." |
This neoplasm is reportable because it is malignant as proven by the lymph node metastases. Code the behavior as malignant (/3) when there are lymph node metastases. |
2010 |
|
|
20100064 | Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology to be coded for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and/or precursor B acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Pre-B ALL) for cases diagnosed 2010 and later? The Heme Database has two histology codes for this disease, both 9811/3 and 9836/3, which is the correct histology code? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code histology to 9811/3 [B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma, NOS].
See the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB, when determining how to code histology for a case. It indicates the code 9811/3 is effective for cases diagnosed 2010 and forward. The 9836/3 is listed as obsolete and refers you to code 9811/3. Make sure to check for a specific subtype of B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma [9812/3 - 9818/3] before assigning the NOS code [9811/3].
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. |
2010 | |
|
|
20100041 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Are "anemia of chronic disorders" or "hemolytic anemia" reportable given that a search of the Hematopoietic Database returns many different reportable conditions but no exact terminology match for either diagnosis? See Discussion. |
Searching the Heme Database for the term ANEMIA OF CHRONIC DISORDERS yields 71 results. However, none of the results match the terminology entered, yet all 71 "matched terms" are reportable. Is this diagnosis reportable?
Another example is HEMOLYTIC ANEMIA. The search results showed 28 "matched terms" which are all reportable, but none are exact matches.
Please clarify how we should interpret the results of these searches when using the Heme Database. |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Neither diagnosis is reportable. Anemia of chronic disorder or disease is seen when a patient has a chronic immune disorder or a malignancy; the anemia itself is not a malignancy. Hemolytic anemia can be caused by many conditions, but is not malignant.
The problem you are having using the Heme DB is that you are searching for the entire term such as "anemia of chronic disorder." The DB search engine is not the same as those used in Google or other widely used internet search engines. The words lymphoma, leukemia, etc. are so common in the DB that the traditional search is not effective.
In order to make your search easier, search on a unique word. For example, for "anemia of chronic disorder" search on the words (use the quotes) "anemia of" and for the term hemolytic anemia, search on "hemolytic" By using the unique word search you will cut down on the number of terms displayed. If you do get several terms, click on "Name" in the header and all of the results will be alphabetized for quick identification. You may also use the "diseases matching any term" or the "disease match all terms" options to narrow down the results when searching the whole term phrase.
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 |
|
|
20100026 | Multiplicity Counter--Kidney, Renal Pelvis: How many times is this field updated after an invasive primary is originally diagnosed? Should subsequently diagnosed in situ tumors to be included in this field? See Discussion. | How should the Multiplicity Counter be coded when a patient has a renal pelvis primary [C659] diagnosed 1/23/08. The patient had one tumor, invasive grade 3 of 3 papillary urothelial carcinoma arising in the depth of a calyx in mid portion of kidney. In 6/1/09, a TURBT showed three separate high grade urothelial carcinoma in-situ lesions on the right side of the bladder, the largest tumor being 7mm. In 2/8/10, another TURBT showed one lesion on the left side of bladder, high grade urothelial carcinoma in-situ, tumor was 4mm. These are all a single primary per rule M8. | Code multiplicity counter 04. Count both invasive and in situ tumors.
Multiplicity counter would have been coded 01 in 2008. Add the three in situ tumors diagnosed in 2009 to the first tumor and update multiplicity counter to 04. Make only one update to multiplicity counter. Because the multiplicity counter was updated once, the fifth tumor diagnosed in 2010 does not need to be added. |
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 | |
|
|
20100061 | MP/H Rules/Histology: The 2010 SEER Manual has omitted some useful information in the Histologic Type ICD-O-3 section, specifically the statement of "Do not revise or update the histology code based on subsequent recurrence(s)". Will this statement be added to the revisions of the MPH rules? See Discussion. | Example: A 2005 diagnosis of left breast lobular carcinoma [8520/3], followed by a 2009 diagnosis of left breast ductal carcinoma [8500/3]. Rule M10 states this is a single primary, but there is no information in the Histology rules (Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary) that the original histology should be retained, thus a person could potentially use these rules to change the original histology to 8522/3 [duct and lobular carcinoma] per rule H28. | We will reinstate the instruction not to change the histology code based on recurrence in future versions of the histology coding instructions. However, this instruction may not be applicable to all anatomic sites. It will be reinstated on a site-by-site basis. You may also refer to the instructions on Page 7 of the 2010 SEER Manual under the heading "Changing Information on the Abstract." | 2010 |
|
|
20100024 | Histology: How is this field coded for a perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm (PEComa) of uncertain malignant potential that is malignant based on the presence of metastases? See Discussion. |
In 11/2006 the patient had surgery for a 6cm mass in the RUQ arising in the falciform ligament. The pathologic final diagnosis was: Perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm (PEComa) of uncertain malignant potential. In 10/2009 a liver biopsy showed metastatic perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm. |
Assign histology code 8005/3 [malignant clear cell tumor]. According to our expert pathology consultant, this is the best histology code available at this time for the occasional tumor which is designated as malignant. The appearance of metastatic disease clearly defines this case as malignant. |
2010 |
|
|
20100036 | Behavior--Lung: Can an in situ behavior code be used for a bronchioalveolar carcinoma of the lung when the pathologist appears to use the term bronchioalveolar to describe an in situ pattern of growth exhibited by an adenocarcinoma? Is the use of the term "pattern" in this situation indicative of in situ tumor? See Discussion. | In ICD-O-3, bronchioloalveolar adenocarcinoma is described only by behavior code 3 (invasive). Would the behavior be coded as in situ for the following cases?
Example 1: Left lower lobe, partial resection shows bronchioloalveolar carcinoma with focal areas of fibrosis (see comment). Comment: Although the possibility that these areas represent stromal invasion can not be excluded, we favor the interpretation that these areas do not represent true invasion. Synoptic summary: Minimal pathologic stage: Local Extent.
Example 2: Lung tumor described as adenocarcinoma, predominantly bronchoalveolar pattern. For most sites, the term pattern is used only for in situ cancer and is not a specific term used for invasive tumors. Is the use of the term "pattern" in this situation indicative of in situ tumor? |
Code the behavior indicated in the pathology report. If the pathologist states the bronchioloalveolar carcinoma is in situ, apply the ICD-O-3 matrix rule and assign 8250/2. Otherwise, code 8250/3. Do not use the term "pattern" to infer in situ behavior.
Code behavior /3 for both examples based on information provided. |
2010 |
An official website of the United States government
