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: 02/10/2026 22:43 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20110079 MP/H Rules/Histology: In the MP/H Manual, where is the documentation indicating "focal" is not a term that can be used to code histology? See Discussion. Example: neuroendocrine carcinoma with focal squamous differentiation. For the purposes of the MP/H rules, the term "focal" is not used to indicate a more specific histology. Terms that may be used to indicate a more specific histology are listed in the relevant histology rules. For example, see Breast histology rule H3. Notice the terms listed in the note for this rule are "type, subtype, predominantly, with features of, major, with ___ differentiation, architecture or pattern." The term "focal" is not included. This concept will be clarified in future revisions to MP/H rules. 2011
20110149

Ambiguous Terminology/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are the histology and diagnostic confirmation to be coded when the pathology report's final diagnosis is "plasma cell dyscrasia consistent with plasma cell myeloma" and the physician subsequently states this diagnosis was plasma cell myeloma? See Discussion.

Pathologists often use the diagnosis "plasma cell dyscrasia" followed by an ambiguous term such as "consistent with" or "favors" with a more specific histology such as "plasma cell myeloma." Per initial training for Hematopoietic, ambiguous terminology is not used to code the histology for Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms. Should the histology be coded as plasma cell dyscrasia (which is not found in the Heme DB or Manual) because the pathology report uses ambiguous terminology to describe the plasma cell myeloma?

If the physician subsequently states the diagnosis is "plasma cell myeloma" in a note following the pathology, should the histology be coded as plasma cell myeloma based on that diagnosis as there was no ambiguous terminology used?

How is the diagnostic confirmation coded for this case? Should this be a positive histology diagnosis (diagnostic confirmation code 1) if the pathology diagnosis uses ambiguous terminology only?

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

The histology is coded as Plasma cell myeloma [9732/3]. The diagnostic confirmation is coded to 1 [positive histology].

Under the Definitive Diagnostic Methods section in the Heme DB it indicates that a bone marrow aspiration and bone marrow biopsy are procedures used to diagnose this disease process. This patient's diagnosis was based on the pathology (presumably from a bone marrow biopsy).

NOTE: This is a reportable case. Ambiguous terminology is used to accession cases (determine reportability) because it has been used for over 30 years to do so. Any deviation from using ambiguous terminology to determine case reportability would cause the reporting of incidence counts to vary. In this case, there was a reportable, ambiguous terminology diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma on the pathology report; as well as a reportable physician's statement/diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma.

Ambiguous terminology, however, is not used to report a more specific diagnosis for the Heme & Lymphoid neoplasms. For example, if the pathology report final diagnosis was "Myeloproliferative neoplasm, probably Polycythemia Vera" the histology would be coded as myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable [9975/3]. The ambiguous terminology indicates that the genetic testing, immunophenotyping, etc., probably are not complete or are not diagnostic of the more specific disease. Wait to code the histology until there is a definite diagnosis given.

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
20110015 Primary site/Histology: Do the 4/1/09 changes in the ICD-O-3 Site/Type Validation table regarding the coding of primary site for intestinal type adenocarcinoma mean that the former valid site/histology combinations are now impossible and require review from a given diagnosis date forward? See Discussion.

Per the SEER Errata for ICD-O-3 Site/Type Validation List, April 1, 2009, adenocarcinoma, intestinal type, was removed as a valid site/histology combination for the following primary sites: C150-C155, C158-C159, C170-C173, C178-C179, C180-C189, C199, C209, C210-C212, C218.

  • Does this mean that these combinations cannot be used? If so, then why is an override allowed for these site/type combinations? Shouldn't these site/type combinations be added to the impossible site/type combinations table?

  • SINQ 20081085 states that "8144/3 will be removed from the valid site/histology list for large intestine, small intestine, and rectum." It appears from the Site/Type Validation table that a decision was made to also remove esophagus sites as a valid combination with histology code of 8144. Please explain the rationale.

  • Cases that were miscoded to 8144/3 will need to be identified for correction. What date of diagnosis should be the reference point used in making the necessary corrections related to this change? Do we only need to review cases diagnosed 1/1/2009 forward or should all cases be corrected regardless of date of diagnosis?

    • The site/type edit identifies unlikely combinations of primary site and histologic type.

  • Intestinal type adenocarcinoma occurs in the stomach. It would be rare in another primary site, but not impossible.

  • It was decided that all digestive organ sites, except stomach, would be removed from the list. That is why esophagus is not listed as a valid site.

  • The site/type edit is for all years. Cases for all years have to be reviewed for combinations of site and type that are no longer on the list. If it is documented in the medical record that the primary site and histology combination are valid, set the over-ride flag so that the case will not come up for review again.

    		• 2011
    		20110066 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be accessioned for a patient with a history of CLL undergoing chemotherapy who is subsequently diagnosed on a liver biopsy with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (Richter transformation)?

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

    Abstract the diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (Richter transformation) as a second primary per Rule M10. Rule M10 states to abstract as multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm (CLL) AND there is a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm (the diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (Richter transformation)) more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis.

    "Richter transformation," also known as "Richter syndrome," is a term that indicates CLL has transformed to DLBCL. Richter syndrome is listed under the Alternate Names section in the Heme DB for DLBCL (9680/3).

    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
    		20110012 Reportability--Sarcoma: Is "atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma" reportable? See Discussion.

    The final diagnosis for a soft tissue excision is, "atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma". The Comment section states, "Atypical lipomatous tumor/well differentiated liposarcoma has a significant risk for local recurrence, but no metastatic potential."

    Per the 2010 SEER Manual, page 3, example 4: The pathologist makes the final decision about the behavior for a particular case. In this case, the pathologist uses both a reportable and a non-reportable term in the final diagnosis and in the comment section of the pathology report. Does the pathologist's comment impact the behavior and reportability of this tumor?

    		 For cases diagnosed 1/1/2014 and later: Atypical lipomatous tumor (8850/1) is not reportable. If the pathologist uses the term "well-differentiated liposarcoma" (8851/3) report the case. Use of this terminology indicates a less favorable prognosis. 2011
    		20110044

    MP/H Rules/Histology--Corpus uteri: What are the histologies for the primaries to be reported when the endometrium contains two separate tumors composed of adenocarcinoma with multiple differentiations as well as a separate small focus of clear cell carcinoma? See Discussion.

     

    The resected specimen showed, "Adenocarcinoma of endometrium with the following features: Histologic type: Endometrioid with squamous and focal clear cell differentiation. A second focus of endometrial adenocarcinoma is present in the fundus with admixed complex atypical hyperplasia in a polypoid, non-invasive mass. The second tumor is endometrioid with secretory differentiation. COMMENT: The tissue in between the two tumors is sampled, and contains foci of endometrial adenocarcinoma that is superficially present within the endometrium, as well as a small focus of clear cell carcinoma measuring 0.2 cm."

    Per MP/H rules M17, this is counted as multiple primaries because the histology codes differ at the third digit: 8323/3, 8382/3, 8310/3. The Multiple Primary rules make no reference to the histology tables. There is also no rule to ignore the in situ tumor. In addition, the histology table in the 2007 MP/H Rules Manual for Other Sites does not include "secretory differentiation" as a type of GYN malignancy.

    After consultation with our expert pathologist, the decision is report this case as a single primary. There was some confusion about how to apply the current MP/H rules to this pathology report given 1) the definition of M16 and M17 and 2) the likelihood for a single endometrial primary to present with several differentiations. According to our expert pathologist, "I would regard this case as a single endometrial primary with extensive endometrial involvement and several types of differentiation, all of which are seen in endometrial carcinomas."

    Next, the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual is the correct source for coding histology for cases diagnosed 2007 or later.

    The following steps are used to determine the histology code.

    Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For an endometrial primary, use the Other Sites Histo rules to determine the histology code because endometrium does not have site specific rules.

    Start with the MULTIPLE TUMORS ABSTRACTED AS A SINGLE PRIMARY module, Rule H18. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module from Rule H18 to Rule H31. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.

    Code the appropriate combination/mixed code (Table 2) when there are multiple specific histologies. GYN malignancies with multiple types of adenocarcinoma have histology coded to 8323/3 [mixed cell adenocarcinoma] per rule H30.

    		 2011
    		20110105 Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries should be reported for a bone marrow biopsy diagnosis of "lymphoproliferative disorder, small cell lymphocytic lymphoma/small cell lymphocytic leukemia consistent with marginal zone lymphoma"? According to our hematopoietic/lymphoid neoplasm physician expert, abstract one primary with the histology code 9699/3 [marginal zone lymphoma]. The pathologist is using the expression "small lymphocytic lymphoma" in a descriptive manner (marginal zone lymphoma is comprised of small lymphocytes) rather than in a "diagnostic" manner. 2011
    		20110111

    MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted for a patient with a history of right breast ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed in 2007 treated with bilateral mastectomies and a right chest wall mass excised in 2010 that revealed infiltrating ductal carcinoma? See Discussion.

    The patient's right breast DCIS in 2007 was treated with bilateral mastectomies with negative lymph nodes and negative margins. The patient refused Tamoxifen at that time. In 2010 a right chest wall mass excision revealed infiltrating ductal carcinoma with negative axillary lymph nodes. The physician states this is a recurrence. Per MP/H rule M8 this invasive tumor must be abstracted as a new primary. Would the primary site of the 2010 tumor be coded to breast or chest wall given that the patient has a previous mastectomy?

    This tumor in 2010 represents a recurrence; it is not a new primary. This second tumor would be coded as a new primary ONLY if the pathology report states that it originated in breast tissue that was still present on the chest wall. When there is no mention of breast tissue in a subsequent resection, the later occurring tumor is regional metastases to the chest wall (i.e., a recurrence of the original tumor).

    In turn, this means that there was at least a focus of invasion present in the original tumor that was not identified by the pathologist. The behavior code on the original abstract must be changed from a /2 to a /3 and the stage must be changed from in situ to localized.

    		 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
    		20110127

    Primary Site--Brain and CNS: Are meninges surrounding cranial nerves cranial meninges [C700] or a part of the specific nerve's sheath? Is the primary site for an optic nerve sheath meningioma coded to optic nerve [C723] or cranial meninges [C700]?

    Code the primary site to cranial meninges [C700].

    		 2011