Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20110091 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: How is this field coded for a patient with ureter specimen with "high grade urothelial carcinoma with adenocarcinoma differentiation" and a TURB specimen with "urothelial ca, high grade, a biphasic pattern with cautery-distorted urothelial carcinoma and adenocarcinoma"? | According to the MP/H rules, code histology to 8120/3 [urothelial carcinoma] for cases diagnosed 2007 or later. The term "glandular differentiation" is equivalent to adenocarcinoma differentiation. 8120/3 [urothelial carcinoma] would be the best way to code a "biphasic pattern with cautery-distorted urothelial carcinoma and adenocarcinoma" according to a pathologist consultant.
The steps used to arrive at this decision are as follows:
Go to the Urinary Histo rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual.
Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS ABSTRACTED AS A SINGLE PRIMARY module, rule H9. Code the histology to 8120 [transitional cell/urothelial carcinoma] when there is transitional cell carcinoma with glandular differentiation. |
2011 | |
|
|
20110116 | MP/H/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code for "heterologous biphasic sarcomatoid carcinoma of the lung with prominent rhabdomyoblastic and adenoca differentiation"? |
The expert pathologist recommends coding histology to 8980/3 [Carcinosarcoma] for this combination histology. Expert consultation: The designation "carcinosarcoma" is given when the pathology shows differentiation in both the sarcomatous (rhabdomyoblastic) and carcinomatous (adenoca) elements. This is emphasized in the path for this case with the term "biphasic." The term "heterologous" mean that the sarcomatous component is of a type not normal to lung. Rhabdomyoblastic means skeletal muscle differentiation. Because skeletal muscle is not normally found in lung it is heterologous. If it were smooth muscle, it would be homologous because smooth muscle is found in lung (as a part of the bronchi). |
2011 | |
|
|
20110023 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are reported in a patient with a November 2009 diagnosis of refractory anemia and a 10/25/2010 biopsy diagnosis of refractory anemia with excess blasts type 2 with ringed sideroblasts that the clinician indicates actually demonstrates progression to AML? See Discussion. | Refractory anemia, NOS diagnosed in November 2009. The diagnosis on a bone marrow biopsy performed on 10/25/10 is myelodysplastic syndrome - refractory anemia with excess blasts type 2 with ringed sideroblasts. Per the medical oncologist, in the 12/16/10 clinic note it states, "Pt underwent bone marrow biopsy on 10/25/10 and ultimately this marrow demonstrates progression to AML.
When applying the Hematopoietic Rules, the refractory anemia, NOS and the myelodysplastic syndrome - refractory anemia with excess blasts type 2 with ringed sideroblasts is the same primary. However, the refractory anemia NOS and the AML are multiple primaries. |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
First, note that myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) is a term that includes a number of diseases. Refractory anemia, NOS and refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts are types of MDS. These two diseases are an NOS and a more specific disease, which is accessioned as one primary per Rule M7.
Next, assess the change from refractory anemia to AML. In checking the Heme DB, AML is listed under transformations for refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts. This patient has a chronic disease (refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts) and an acute disease (AML). Per Rule M10, abstract as multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed in a chronic (less aggressive) phase AND second diagnosis of a blast or acute phase more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis.
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. |
2011 |
|
|
20110140 | MP/H Rules/Behavior--Breast: How are behavior and histology coded when the pathology report final diagnosis is "ductal carcinoma in situ and lobular carcinoma in situ" if the microscopic examination section of the same pathology report states there are "foci suspicious for microinvasive carcinoma"? See Discussion. | The pathology report microscopic examination states, "focally, between ducts involved by DCIS, there are minute tubular structures associated with stromal fibrosis and chronic inflammation. These foci are suspicious for microinvasive carcinoma." | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code one primary with histology and behavior coded to 8522/2 [intraductal carcinoma and lobular carcinoma in situ].
The steps used to arrive at this decision are as follows
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Breast Histology rules. The module you use depends on the behavior and number of tumors identified in the primary site. The information provided does not specify whether this was a single tumor with DCIS and LCIS or multiple tumors with DCIS and LCIS. In this case, the number of tumors does not change the histology code for this patient. For this example, assume this disease process was a single tumor.
Start at the SINGLE TUMOR: In Situ Carcinoma Only module. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order from Rule H1 to Rule H8. Stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing. Code the histology as 8522/2 (intraductal carcinoma and lobular carcinoma in situ) when there is a combination of in situ lobular (LCIS) [8520] and intraductal carcinoma (DCIS).
Do not code the behavior as invasive in this case. The pathologist indicated that these findings were "suspicious" but not definite in the microscopic examination. If the pathologist decided that this was truly an invasive tubular element, it would have been included in the final diagnosis.
|
2011 |
|
|
20110115 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How is micropapillary adenocarcinoma of the lung coded given that a literature search indicates that this is a distinct subtype of adenocarcinoma of the lung with poor prognosis? | Code the histology to 8260/3 [papillary adenocarcinoma]. An expert pathologist states that the WHO notes micropapillary to be a pattern seen in papillary carcinomas, but does not specify it as a separate histologic type. | 2011 | |
|
|
20110061 | Primary site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the primary site and histology codes be updated when a patient with a history in 2005 of a bone marrow diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia later presents in 2010 with lymph node biopsy diagnosis of small B-cell lymphocytic leukemia? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph. Per Rule M2, this is a single primary because there is a single histology. Code histology to 9823/3 [CLL/SLL]/ The distinction of CLL vs. SLL cannot be made on bone marrow biopsy in isolation. The pathologist cannot make a diagnosis of CLL vs SLL without having peripheral blood counts available for review. If the patient was treated for CLL in the past, that may alter the peripheral counts seen in 2010 (e.g., lymphocytosis). The distinguishing feature is peripheral lymphocytosis in CLL (not seen in SLL). The disease looks the same and both will often have bone marrow involvement and lymph node involvement. If the patient had true CLL in 2005, then any subsequent lymph node (or other) biopsy consistent with CLL/SLL remains consistent with the original diagnosis of CLL. I would not change the original CLL code. I agree with the previous response. We have to assume the 2005 diagnosis included a peripheral blood supporting that diagnosis. Otherwise, CLL and SLL look the same in nodes and marrow. The interplay between the two "diseases" is expected. This is why they are considered a single disease. 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. |
2011 | |
|
|
20110150 | Ambiguous Terminology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: As ambiguous terminology is not used to code histology for Heme & Lymphoid primaries, how is the histology coded when a patient has a clinical diagnosis of "consistent with a myelodysplastic syndrome"? See Discussion. | The physician states the "patient's clinical picture certainly is most consistent with MDS." Several FISH probes were performed on peripheral blood, specifically looking for the 5q minus syndrome as well as other molecular rearrangements to suggest or confirm MDS. These studies came back as normal. The initial bone marrow also came back negative. The physician then states, "The suspicion was that this represented a myelodysplastic syndrome despite the normal cytogenetics. Additional studies performed on the date of the clinic visit included the FISH for the 5q minus syndrome as well as CD59 to exclude PNH. Both of these were negative. Therefore, at this juncture, the patient has a macrocytic anemia not yet requiring transfusion support with a normal white count and an elevated platelet count and a hypercellular bone marrow. This is certainly consistent with a myelodysplastic syndrome."
Per coding guidelines, ambiguous terminology is not used to code histology, only for reportability. What is the histology code for this case? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology as Myelodysplastic syndrome, unclassifiable [9989/3].
Ambiguous terminology is used to accession cases (determine reportability). While ambiguous terminology is generally not used to code a specific histology, it can be used to code histology if it is the .
The statement that you do not use ambiguous terms to code histology is intended for those NOS histologies with an ambiguous term being used to describe the subtype. For example, if the physician states this is a myelodysplastic syndrome, NOS, refractory thrombocytopenia. The correct histology would be MDS, NOS [9989/3] and not refractory thrombocytopenia [9992/3].
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. |
2011 |
|
|
20110134 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted, and what rule applies, when the patient has a 1999 diagnosis of Burkitt high grade B-cell lymphoma and was diagnosed in 2011 with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma? See Discussion | Patient diagnosed in 1999 with Burkitt high-grade B cell lymphoma of the thyroid gland and cervical nodes. The patient was treated with a thyroidectomy and chemotherapy. A 2011 biopsy of the parotid gland is positive for diffuse large B cell lymphoma. The pathologist reviewed the 1999 and 2011 pathology reports and stated this is one primary. | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case should be accessioned as two primaries per Rule M15. Rule M15 instructs one 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. Code the histology for the 1999 primary to 9687/3 [Burkitt high grade B cell lymphoma] and code primary site to C739 [thyroid.] Code the second primary to 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma] with primary site coded to C079 [parotid gland] per Rule PH24 which instructs one to code the to the when lymphoma is present only in an .
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. |
2011 |
|
|
20110005 | Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the pre-2010 histology coded for a "follicular grade 2, non-Hodgkin lymphoma with marginal zone B-cell differentiation"? See Discussion. | This patient was seen in 2010 for the same primary as diagnosed in 2006. The histology was coded to marginal zone lymphoma [9699/3] in 2006. Is this correct? Or should this have been coded as a follicular lymphoma, ignoring the modifying expression "marginal zone B-cell differentiation"? | This is a 2006 diagnosis. The histology code is 9691/3 [follicular lymphoma, grade 2]. Do not code differentiation for hematopoietic cases.
For diagnoses 2010 and forward, a small number of cases of follicular lymphoma do have marginal zone differentiation. However, there is no code for this variant of follicular lymphoma. It would simply be coded as a follicular lymphoma because that is the most accurate histology code available. The marginal zone differentiation is not to be coded as a second primary (marginal zone lymphoma). |
2011 |
|
|
20110074 | First course treatment/Date therapy initiated--Breast: How is the Date of Initiation of Hormone Therapy field coded when a patient undergoes "Tamoxifen blunting" to achieve better MRI imaging after a biopsy but prior to definitive surgery which is followed by adjuvant Tamoxifen therapy? See Discussion. | Patients are prescribed two weeks of "Tamoxifen blunting" to achieve better MRI imaging after biopsy confirmation of an ER/PR positive breast carcinoma. The Tamoxifen is subsequently discontinued and the patient has definitive surgery. Following surgery, maintenance Tamoxifen is initiated. Which date should be recorded for the Date of Initiation of Hormone Therapy field? Is it the first date when Tamoxifen blunting started or the post-surgical date when maintenance Tamoxifen is initiated? | Use the post-surgical start date of maintenance Tamoxifen to code the Date of Initiation of Hormone Therapy field. The actual hormone treatment begins after surgery when Tamoxifen blunting was performed. The low dose administered prior to surgery does not affect the cancer. | 2011 |
An official website of the United States government
