System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 07/16/2025 04:11 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20100086 Multiple primaries/Primary site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient is diagnosed with mycosis fungoides in February 2010 and in May 2010 is diagnosed with peripheral T-cell lymphoma consistent with CD 30+ large cell transformation of mycosis fungoides? See Discussion Patient was diagnosed with mycosis fungoides on 2/10/2010. On 5/11/2010 the patient underwent lymph node biopsies lymph nodes that were diagnosed as peripheral Tcell lymphoma consistent with CD 30+ large cell transformation of mycosis fungoides. There is no data on the ALK protein.

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Accession two primaries per Rule M15 which instructs you to use the Multiple Primaries Calculator to determine the number of reportable primaries. The result is that mycosis fungoides [9700/3] and peripheral T-cell lymphoma [9702/3] represents two primaries.

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.

  • The pathologist designates the carcinoid as malignant

  • Regional lymph nodes are positive for MALIGNANT carcinoid (not reportable if lymph nodes are reported to be involved with benign carcinoid disease)

  • There are discontinuous metastatic implants or involvement

    • 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
    		20100098 Primary site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are these fields coded for a 2008 diagnosis of small B cell leukemia, most consistent with mantle cell leukemia that only involved the bone marrow? See Discussion. A bone marrow biopsy was done on 6/18/2008 and showed only small B cell leukemia, most consistent with mantle cell leukemia. ICD-O-3 does not list a histology code for small B cell leukemia or mantle cell leukemia.

    Code the histology to 9673/3 [mantle cell lymphoma] and the primary site to C421 [bone marrow].

    Mantle cell lymphoma can present in a leukemic phase. The only code available is for mantle cell lymphoma and the only primary site that could be coded would be bone marrow.

    		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
    		20100054 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned if a pathology specimen reveals an infiltrating mammary carcinoma with mixed tubular and lobular features, 2.3 cm, low grade cribriform in situ ductal carcinoma, and Paget disease of the overlying skin with ulceration? See Discussion. According to SINQ 20081134 the histology would be 8524 if this is one primary.

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is a single primary.

    In order to determine whether this case represents a single or multiple primary, you must first determine the correct histology code for the underlying tumor. Using rule H9, ignore the DCIS.

    See Table 3 in the equivalent terms and definitions. Infiltrating lobular, tubular, and Paget are coded to a single histology code (8524/3). Our current multiple primary rules do not say infiltrating lobular and tubular and Paget are a single primary. This was an omission and will be corrected in a future revision. Thank you for bringing this omission to our attention.

    		 2010
    		20100069 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is this field coded when a 5/26/10 colonoscopy reveals ulcers in the cecum, ascending, transverse, descending, and sigmoid colon and, the final diagnosis on the pathology report is post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder [9971/3]?

    For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

    Code the primary site to C189 [Colon, NOS] per Rule PH1.

    Code the primary site to C189 [Colon, NOS] and not C188 [Colon, overlapping lesion] because there are multiple ulcers in different segments of the colon. The .8 code is used only for a single lesion that overlaps subsites.

    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
    		20100078 MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How is histology coded for a diagnosis of squamous carcinoma and large cell undifferentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, apply rule H7 and code the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code, 8070/3 [Squamous cell carcinoma]. See Chart 1, the histology tree in lung equivalent terms. Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma is histology code 8013/3. The other histology is squamous carcinoma, 8070/3. 8070/3 is higher numerically than 8013/3. 2010
    		20100082 Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should a case be accessioned as MDS, NOS when a consult uses ambiguous terminology (e.g., probable MDS) to describe the disease process and the bone marrow does not confirm the consult diagnosis? See Discussion. A patient is stated to have "probable MDS" by a hematology oncologist consult during an admission. A bone marrow biopsy was also performed during this admission, the final diagnosis on the pathology report is, "anemia and thrombocytopenia." The patient was not seen again by a hematology oncologist; however the patient's cardiology states, "BM biopsy was not clear whether this is MDS or another etiology."

    For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

    This is not reportable. In effect, the original diagnosis was a rule/out MDS diagnosis. The bone marrow biopsy performed as part of the initial workup, proved that rule/out diagnosis was not valid. The subsequent statement confirms the diagnosis is not clear.

    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
    		20100025

    MP/H Rules/Primary site--Kidney, Renal Pelvis: Should the primary site be changed to C689 [Urinary system, NOS] for a primary renal pelvis tumor after additional tumors are found months later in different urinary sites (e.g., bladder or ureter) and the MP/H Rules indicate these are all the same primary? See Discussion.

    In a patient is diagnosed 1/29/08 with an invasive grade 3 of 3 papillary urothelial cell carcinoma arising in the depth of a calyx in mid portion of kidney, the primary site was coded C659 [Renal pelvis]. In 6/1/09 a TURBT showed three separate lesions on the right side of the bladder. The final diagnosis was high grade urothelial carcinoma in-situ with three tumors, the largest being 7mm. Per rule M8, the renal pelvis primary and subsequent bladder tumors are the same primary. Would the primary site be changed to C689 [Urinary system, NOS] when the bladder tumors were identified? Or is C689 only coded if more than one primary site is involved at diagnosis?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M8 applies. This is a single primary. The primary site was coded to C659 in 2008. Do not change the primary site code.

    		 2010