Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20100083 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned for a patient with a longstanding history of follicular cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma followed by a 2010 diagnosis of "B-cell lymphoma with prominent large cell component, compatible with primary cutaneous follicle center cell lymphoma"? See Discussion. | Patient has a history of follicular cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma dating back to the 1990s. The patient was treated with chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation, radiation and rituximab. The patient had no evidence of recurrence. In April 2010 a lesion appeared on the side of the scalp above the left ear with a diagnosis of "B-cell lymphoma with prominent large cell component, compatible with primary cutaneous follicle center cell lymphoma." The oncology diagnosis is "primary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma."
Would the Multiple Primaries Calculator be used in this case? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Accession two primaries per Rule M15. Per the Multiple Primaries Calculator, primary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma [9597/3] following a diagnosis of follicular lymphoma, NOS [9690/3] is a new primary.
While the pathologic diagnosis was B-cell lymphoma "compatible with" primary cutaneous follicle center cell lymphoma and ambiguous terms cannot be used to identify a more specific histology, the physician confirmed the more specific diagnosis without ambiguous terminology. Therefore, this diagnosis should be coded.
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 |
|
|
20100009 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Bladder: Is a new primary accessioned for a 2009 diagnosis of transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder when the patient has a history of invasive bladder cancer NOS diagnosed? See Discussion. | A patient has a history of invasive bladder cancer diagnosed several years ago in another state. In 2009, the patient was admitted and found to have a positive biopsy for transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder.
Is this a new primary because the histology of the previous bladder cancer is unknown? When the histology of a previously diagnosed bladder cancer is unknown, should we assume the previous tumor was urothelial carcinoma? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, apply rule M6. The 2009 diagnosis is not a new primary. Transitional cell carcinomas account for more than 90% of bladder cancers. If the patient actually had a rare small cell, squamous cell, or adenocarcinoma of the bladder in the past, it is highly likely it would be mentioned in the medical record. | 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 |
|
|
20100050 | Reportability--Colon: Would a carcinoid tumor, NOS, of the appendix with perineural or angiolymphatic invasion be reportable if there is no mention of malignancy in the pathology report? |
Carcinoid, NOS, of the appendix diagnosed in 2015 or later is reportable.
For cases diagnosed prior to 2015
Carcinoids of the appendix are reportable when they meet any of the following conditions.
Note that the implants/involvement must be designated as malignant. Many benign tumors will spawn implants that are also benign. If implants are benign, this is not a reportable tumor. |
2010 | |
|
|
20100110 | Reportability--Esophagus/Stomach: Are the terms "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" synonymous with in situ for tumors in the gastrointestinal tract? See Discussion. |
SINQ 20000245 states that high grade or severe dysplasia in not synonymous with in situ disease. However, per page 109 in the 7th edition of AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, high grade dysplasia is the only term listed under Tis. A note on that page explains that "high-grade dysplasia includes all noninvasive neoplastic epithelia that was formerly called carcinoma in situ, a diagnosis that is no longer used for columnar mucosae anywhere in the gastrointestinal tract."
There has been considerable pressure from registrars at larger reporting facilities to re-address this issue. The pathologists at these facilities state that they are correctly documenting the presence of in situ disease when they use the term high grade dysplasia for gastrointestinal tract tumors. In their opinion, it is not necessary to add the term in situ in parentheses following the use of the term high grade dysplasia to clarify the behavior of these lesions in their pathology reports. If the term "carcinoma in situ" is no longer being used by many pathologists for sites in the gastrointestinal tract, won't this lead to underreporting of in situ disease for these sites unless the reportability guidelines are changed? |
For cancer reporting purposes, the terms "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" are not synonymous with in situ for tumors in the gastrointestinal tract. These cases are only reportable when the pathologist documents carcinoma in situ or intraepithelial neoplasia grade III, or when the registry includes in their policies and procedures the pathologist's statement that he/she uses HGD to mean the same as CIS.
Reportability laws are customarily based on ICD-O. Because "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" are not designated as in situ in the ICD-O, there is no legal authority to report these cases in most states.
NAACCR is reviewing this issue. See #5 on page 11 of the December 1, 2013 NAACCR Implementation document, http://www.naaccr.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=u7d3sB71t5w%3d&tabid=126&mid=466 |
2010 |
|
|
20100040 | Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is this field coded for a patient with a negative bone marrow and multiple plasmacytomas in different bone sites (e.g., thoracic vertebrae and left femur)? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site to C419 [Bone, NOS] and the histology to 9731/3 [solitary plasmacytoms].
The vertebral lesions are common for plasmacytomas, as are lesions of the femur. If the patient does not meet the criteria of plasma cell myeloma/multiple myeloma (which is 20% of the leukocyte differential count), do not code the histology to multiple myeloma.
Per Rule M2, abstract a single primary when there is a single histology.
Per Rule PH3, code the primary site to the where the plasmacytoma originated and code the histology of bone () when the diagnosis is multiple plasmacytomas of the bone.
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 | |
|
|
20100081 | Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should a single primary be accessioned with the histology coded 9732/3 [multiple myeloma] when a patient is diagnosed initially with a plasmacytoma on an excision and a single bone marrow biopsy showed only 4% plasma cells, then the subsequent workup led to a clinical diagnosis of multiple myeloma? See Discussion. | This patient had a plasmacytoma removed from the sphenoid sinus and was started on Dexamethasone. The patient had a bone marrow biopsy with 4% plasma cells. A statement in the hematology notes read, "it can increase the rate of false negative results with a bone marrow biopsy." The bone marrow biopsy was done 15 days after the surgery for the plasmacytoma.
Workup yielded the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Per a statement in hematology notes, "I found her having 4% blasts, atypical plasma cells in the bone marrow biopsy and also lytic lesions involving the T7 and lucencies involving L4 and L5 vertebral bodies and also the upper sacrum. The PET-CT scan did not show significant metabolic activities in those lesions. The patient had a small amount of Bence-Jones in the urine and also an abnormal kappa to lambda ratio in the serum. The ratio was 12 to 1. The beta 2 microglobulin was 1.4. The albumin in the serum was 3.4. Based on that, the patient has been diagnosed with Durie-Salmon stage III in ISS stage II multiple myeloma."
The abstractor notes for multiple myeloma state that the diagnosis is made when the proportion of plasma cells in the bone marrow is 10% or greater. Should a diagnosis of MM be accessioned and coded when the bone marrow is less than 10% plasma cells, but a clinical diagnosis of MM is made? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Accept the physician's diagnosis of multiple myeloma [9732/3]. Code the multiple myeloma as a single primary using rule M8 if there was only ONE positive biopsy. Code as multiple primaries (both the solitary plasmacytoma and multiple myeloma) using Rule M11 if there are TWO positive biopsies, one confirming the chronic neoplasm and the other confirming the acute neoplasm.
Per the Heme DB Abstractor Notes: The registrar DOES NOT CODE plasma cell myeloma based on the percentage of plasma cells. There must be a diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma. In addition, a clinical diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma may be made based on amyloidosis with associated renal impairment, anemia and/or hypercalcemia supported by radiologic evidence of multiple lytic bone lesions. he biopsy confirmed plasma cell malignancy (plasmacytoma) and the clinical workup confirmed myeloma.
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 |
|
|
20100090 | MP/H Rules/Histology: How is histology coded for a diagnosis of "poorly differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma intermixed with osteoid sarcomatous component, consistent with malignant mixed mullerian tumor with heterologous (osteosarcoma) elements"? Is malignant mixed mullerian tumor synonymous with carcinosarcoma? See Discussion. | Given that there is no mixed code for these histologies, can the numerically higher code be used per H17 (malignant mixed mullerian tumor [8950/3]) using the logic of the MP/H rule for other sites? If so, should this histology be coded as 8980/3 [carcinosarcoma] rather than 8950/3 [malignant mixed mullerian tumor]? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code histology to 8980/3 [carcinosarcoma]. Recent literature states that carcinosarcoma is synonymous with mixed mullerian tumor. Mixed mullerian tumor is an obsolete term and should not be used. | 2010 |
|
|
20100079 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Does the fact that the Hematopoietic Database states the ICD-O-3 code 9970/1 [Lymphoproliferative disorder/disease, NOS] mean that the ICD-O-3 books should be updated to indicate that as of 2010 the code 9970/1 [Lymphoproliferative disorder/disease, NOS] is no longer applicable? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Lymphoproliferative disorder/disease, NOS [9970/1] is not a reportable neoplasm. There are also new codes that define lymphoproliferative disorder/disease more specifically. If you do a "smart search" and enter only the word "lymphoproliferative" into the Heme DB, you will get a listing of all of the reportable and non-reportable terms. That enables you to look at your record and compare the words in the Heme DB to those in the record you are reviewing.
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 | |
|
|
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
