Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20100093 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries: Please clarify how rule M10 for Other Sites was developed and how a "recurrence" of the tumor after one year was determined to be a new primary? See Discussion. |
What is the expected outcome or result of rule M10? Specifically, for soft tissue sarcomas, why is a recurrence after one year a new primary instead of a recurrence? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Rule M10, tumors occurring more than one year apart are multiple primaries, was developed to differentiate a new primary from a recurrence. The rule was developed with the concurrence of the CoC site-specialty physicians and the SEER consulting pathologist. There was agreement between all of the CoC site teams and the consulting pathologist that statements of recurrence should not be relied upon to rule out a new primary. The time limits for each site were set based on information from peer-reviewed articles on tumors occurring in the same site and studies using molecular studies to confirm whether or not the tumors were histologically similar. Determination of the time limit for the "other sites" rules was probably the most difficult because so many sites are involved. However, the specialty-physicians felt that one year was an appropriate length of time to apply to these sites. |
2010 |
|
|
20100022 | Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a 2010 diagnosis of ALK+ anaplastic T cell lymphoma following a 2008 diagnosis of follicular B cell lymphoma, grade 1 a new primary? If so, how is the histology coded? See Discussion. | A patient has a history of Stage 4 follicular B cell lymphoma, grade 1 [9695/3] diagnosed in 2008. The patient was treated with Adriamycin, Cytoxan, Rituxan, and Prednisone. In 2010, the medical oncologist states the patient has progression/recurrence of lymphoma with pathology that has changed to anaplastic T cell lymphoma ALK+. There was immunophenotyping, but there was no more specific diagnosis made. The patient died within 3 months. | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Abstract the anaplastic T cell lymphoma as a new primary. Code the histology to 9714/3 [Anaplastic large cell lymphoma, ALK-positive].
Rule M15 applies to this cases which instructs you to use the Multiple Primaries Calculator. The result for 9695/3 and 9714/3 is "New Primary."
Apply Rule PH30 to code histology which instructs you to use the Heme DB to determine the histology when rules PH1-PH29 do not apply. In searching the Heme DB for "anaplastic" the first term returned is Anaplastic large cell lymphoma, ALK-positive [9714/3].
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20100075 | Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be accessioned when a 1/27/10 bone marrow biopsy, FISH and cytogenetics reveals chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), BCR/ABL positive, t(9;22)(q34;q11) and a 4/15/10 bone marrow biopsy reveals B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Blast phase of CML)? | 1/27/10 BM biopsy: CML BCR/ABL+ FISH positive for BCR/ABL and cytogenetics showing the t(9;22)q34q11.2 translocation. Treated with Imatinib. 4/15/10 BM biopsy: B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Blast phase of CML). Would the term "blast phase of CML" indicate the 4/15/10 bone marrow biopsy showed CML or would a new primary be abstracted with histology coded 9811/3 [B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma, NOS]?
Applying rule M10, this is a new primary, but note 2 states transformations are defined in the Heme DB. The Abstractor Notes section indicates CML has three phases: chronic, accelerated, and the blastic phase or blast crisis. The accelerated phase can last weeks to months. In the chronic phase the involvement is usually limited to blood, bone marrow and spleen although the liver may be infiltrated. During the blastic phase, lymph nodes and tissue may be involved. The blastic phase is a disease progression from the chronic phase. The disease, however, remains the same histology, chronic myelogenous leukemia. |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case represents a multiple primary per Rule M15 which states you are to use the Heme DB Multiple Primaries Calculator to determine the number of primaries for all cases that do not meet the criteria of M1-M14.
The histology for the first primary is coded to 9875/3 [chronic myelogenous leukemia, BCR-ABL1 positive].
The histology for the second primary is 9811/3 [B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma, NOS] in the absence of further documentation that the B-ALL was also positive for the t(9;22) translocation.
The histology code 9806/3 [Mixed phenotype acute leukemia with t(9;22)(q34;q11.2); BCR-ABL1] cannot be used for the second primary because there is no documentation that the B-ALL diagnosed on 04/15/2010 also had the t(9;22) translocation and this histology cannot be used in patients ." Per the Definition section in the Heme DB, in order to use histology code 9806/3 "This leukemia meets the criteria for mixed phenotype acute leukemia (MPAL) in which the blasts also have t(9;22) translocation of BCR-ABL1 rearrangement. Some patients with chronic myeloid leukemia may develop or even present with a mixed blast phase that would meet criteria for MPAL; however, this diagnosis should not be made in patients known to have had CML."
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 |
|
|
20100053 | Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is primary site coded for a myeloid sarcoma (granulocytic sarcoma) arising in the chest wall in a patient that has a negative bone marrow biopsy? See Discussion. | Patient was diagnosed with Myeloid Sarcoma (granulocytic sarcoma) by chest wall biopsy. This is an extramedullary manifestation of acute leukemia and is not in the bone marrow (bone marrow is negative).
How should primary site be coded? The Heme DB states that almost any part of the body can be involved. It also states to not code primary site to C421. In this case the only involvement is the chest wall [C493]. However, use of the primary site code C493 triggers an edit error questioning this site/histology combination. If the primary site is coded to C421 [bone marrow], there is no edit error. Please explain the site code and rationale. |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Unless there are scans showing involvement of a lymph node or tissue other than the chest wall, the histology should be coded myeloid sarcoma [9930/3] and the primary site to C493 [soft tissue of chest wall]. Per Rule PH 30, use the Heme DB to determine primary site and histology when rules PH1-PH29 to not apply. Override the edit.
Per the Abstractor Notes section in Heme DB, for myeloid sarcoma [9930/3] the most frequently affected sites are skin, lymph nodes, gastrointestinal tract, soft tissue, and testis.
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 | |
|
|
20100014 | Reportability: Are there criteria other than a pathologist or clinician's statement that a registrar can use to determine reportability of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST)? See Discussion. | Per SINQ 20091021 and 20021151, GIST cases are not reportable unless they are stated to be malignant. A pathologist or clinician must confirm the diagnosis of cancer. There are cases that are not stated to be malignant in the pathology report or confirmed as such by a clinician; however, these cases do have information that for other primary sites would typically be taken into consideration when determining reportability. The final diagnosis on the pathology report for all 16 cases is "GIST." The additional comment(s) for each of the 16 different cases is reported below. Are any of the following cases reportable?
1) Pathology report indicates that the bulk of the tumor is submucosal. It extends through the muscularis propria and abuts the serosa. 2) Pathology report states tumor extends to serosal surface of transverse colon, but not into muscularis propria. CD 117 and CD 34 are positive. 3) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades through the gastric wall to the serosal surface. 4) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades pericolic fat tissue. 5) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate omental caking. 6) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate hepatic metastases. Hepatic metastases are not biopsied. 7) Tumor stated to be unresectable and extends into pancreas. Chemotherapy given. 8) Pathology report states tumor is low to intermediate grade and involves serosal (visceral peritoneum). 9) Tumor size is 17.5 cm. Pathology report states "malignant risk". 10) Pathology report states tumor "into muscularis propria" or tumor "involves muscularis propria" or "infiltrates into muscularis propria". 11) Pathology report states, "high malignant potential; omentum inv by tumor." It is not stated in path report or final diagnosis to be malignant GIST. 12) Pathology report states that tumor arises from wall of small bowel and extends into thin serosal surface. 13) Pathology report states minimal invasion of lamina propria; does not penetrate muscularis propria. 14) Pathology report states, "high mitotic activity >10/50 HPF; high risk for aggressive behavior; moderate malignant potential." 15) Pathology report states tumor size is >5 cm. Intermediate risk for aggressive behavior; CD117+ KIT exon 11+. 16) Pathology report states "high risk of malignancy." |
For GIST to be reportable, the final diagnosis on the pathology report must definitively state that the GIST is malignant, or invasive, or in situ. Case 6 is the only exception. It would be reportable assuming the scan actually states "hepatic metastases." Based only on the information provided, none of the other examples are reportable. The type of extension and/or invasion mentioned in the other examples are not sufficient to confirm malignancy. Borderline neoplasms can extend and invade, but do not metastasize. Only malignant neoplasms metastasize. | 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 |
|
|
20100071 | Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned for a patient diagnosed in February 2010 with a plasmacytoma of the frontal skull followed by a diagnosis of smoldering myeloma by bone marrow biopsy? See Discussion. | The patient had a diagnosis of solitary plasmacytoma of the right frontal skull in 2/2010 that was totally resected (the cranial specimen final diagnosis was plasmacytoma). The patient received radiation. While undergoing radiation, the patient was seen by a medical oncologist who did a bone marrow biopsy that revealed 10-15% plasma cells, and was called smoldering myeloma. Watchful waiting was recommended. In 8/2010, the patient had multiple lytic lesions and began systemic treatment.
Per rule M15 and the Multiple primary calculator, 9731/3 [plasmacytoma] and 9732/3 [smoldering myeloma] is accessioned as two primaries. When the manual states, "Use the Hematopoietic Database to determine the primary site and histology when PH1-PH29 do not apply," does this mean to use the calculator not the database itself? By the old rules this was one primary. Did this change for cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later? Which M rule is the correct rule to apply? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
The smoldering myeloma is a second primary per Rule M10. Accession as multiple primaries because this case was originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm (plasmacytoma)phase and there was a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm (multiple myeloma) more than 21 days after chronic diagnosis. See note 1 which indicates, "This is a change from previous rules." Note that the MP rules and the MP calculator in the Heme DB agree.
When the rules tell you to go to the DB to determine the histology and primary site, you use the DB information. (Don't forget to check the Abstractor Notes). The multiple primaries calculator is used to determine the number of primaries to abstract. Always use the M rules before using the MP calculator.
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 |
|
|
20100015 | Type of Multiple Tumors/Multiplicity Counter--Breast. Are the data items "Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary" and "Multiplicity Counter" related? How should they be coded for breast cases in which there are multiple measured invasive tumors, plus DCIS which is not measured nor stated whether it is separate from the invasive tumors? See Discussion.
|
For example, path report states only "multifocal invasive ductal carcinoma, 1.5 cm and 0.8 cm, and low-grade DCIS." The Multiplicity Counter instructions tell us to ignore/do not count foci that are not measured. Should we interpret this to mean, count only the two invasive foci and ignore the DCIS? Should Type of Multiple Tumors then be coded 30 or 40, because only the invasive tumors are coded in Multiplicity Counter? | Code Type of Multiple Tumors 30 [in situ and invasive]. The code in Type of Multiple Tumors may or may not reflect the tumors that were counted in Multiplicity Counter. For this case, it is correct to code 02 in multiplicity counter. | 2010 |
An official website of the United States government
