Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20110048 | First course treatment--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is a "donor lymphocyte infusion" that is used in the treatment of CLL coded? | Donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) is coded as immunotherapy. The lymphocytes are donated by the same person who donated the original stem cell transplant. The lymphocyte infusion creates an immune response in which the T-cells are activated to attack the cancer cells.
See "Treatments" for CLL/SLL (9823/3) |
2011 | |
|
|
20110059 | Histology: How do you code histology for "malignant myopericytoma"? |
Report malignant myopericytoma as 8824/3 for cases diagnosed 2021 and later. |
2011 | |
|
|
20110075 | Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How do you code primary site for a case of "leukemia cutis" when the bone marrow exam is negative for involvement with leukemia? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site to C421 [bone marrow] per Rule PH30 which states to use the to determine the primary site and histology when rules PH1-PH29 do apply. Leukemia cutis is the term for a leukemic infiltration of the epidermis, the dermis or the subcutis. This infiltration is easily identified as cutaneous lesions, but the primary site is still bone marrow. This is a type of "metastasis" or spread of the leukemia cells. The "conventional" definition for leukemia cutis is the infiltration of skin from a bone marrow primary. See the Hematopoietic & Lymphoid Neoplasm Coding Manual Glossary.
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 | |
|
|
20110099 | Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is primary site coded for bilateral pelvic lymph node involvement for lymphoma primaries? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph. The PH rules for coding lymphomas (Module 7) refer to a lymph node region as defined by the ICD-O-3. Per the Appendix C, , the ICD-O-3 lymph node region for "pelvic" is C775. In this case, there is one lymph node region involved (bilaterally). Per Rule PH20, code the specific lymph node region when multiple lymph nodes within the same lymph node region (as defined by the ICD-O-3) are involved, C775. Per Note 1 under Rule PH20, use this rule when there is bilateral involvement of lymph nodes. This same table in Appendix C also provides information on how left and right pelvic lymph nodes are categorized by AJCC for purposes of coding stage. If the left and right pelvic lymph nodes are positive for lymphoma, it is involvement of two regions. The case is coded as Stage II. Keep in mind that the ICD-O-3 definition of regions is used to code the primary site, while the AJCC definition of regions is used to code stage. 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 | |
|
|
20110071 | Primary site: How is this field coded for an adenocarcinoma arising in a chronic perianal fistula without extension to the anal canal, but stated to arise in "ectopic rectal tissue"? See Discussion. | The patient underwent a resection of a perineal mass. Per review of slides it was stated to be "primary mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in a chronic perianal fistula." The adenocarcinoma was invasive into the dermal connective tissue and skeletal muscle, but there was no extension into the anal canal. The discharge diagnosis from the reporting facility called this adenocarcinoma of "ectopic rectal tissue in perianal area."
Should the primary site be coded to skin based on the dermal involvement and lack of anal or rectal involvement? Or, should the primary site be coded to rectum based on the physician's assessment that this adenocarcinoma arose in ectopic rectal tissue? |
For cases diagnosed 2007-2014: Code the Primary Site field to C210 [Anus, NOS]. This is an unusual and rare presentation. According to our expert pathologist, "There is no ideal site code [for] this case. I would code to C210. In this location it can at least be located by anyone who wants to get a look at such lesions. Because of the unusual location of this tumor, I would like to be able to code it to perineum, but it will be totally lost in those site codes as they represent extensive areas beyond perianal (skin of trunk, soft tissue of pelvis, and pelvis, respectively)... I would not code to rectum [because it would be] lost among too many primary rectal carcinomas." |
2011 |
|
|
20110096 | Behavior--Lung: How is behavior to be coded for a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of a lung tumor that is further classified per the CAP protocol as, "non-mucinous bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma (adenocarcinoma in situ)" while the pathologist also classifies the tumor as pT1b, pN0? See Discussion. | Is the following case coded with an invasive or in situ behavior when a RUL lobectomy specimen reveals adenocarcinoma and the Histologic Type per the CAP protocol layout is non-mucinous bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma (adenocarcinoma in situ)? The stage per the pathologist is pT1b, pN0. Per the COMMENT section in the pathology report, "The terminology adenocarcinoma in situ is based on a recent publication in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology (Volume 6, #2, February 2011). Based on this criterion, the behavior represents adenocarcinoma in situ with no evident invasive component." | Code the behavior as in situ. The pathologist has the final say on the behavior of the tumor. This pathologist is indicating that in his opinion based on a recent publication, this tumor is in situ. | 2011 |
|
|
20110014 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Corpus Uteri: Which MP/H rule applies in coding histology for a "high grade endometrioid adenocarcinoma with squamous differentiation (adenosquamous carcinoma)"? See Discussion. | Is the pathology describing a specific histology, adenosquamous carcinoma [8560/3]? Or is this a combination/mixed histology code per rule H16? The Rule H16 instruction is to code a mixed histology code, 8323/3 [mixed cell adenocarcinoma] from Table 2 when two or more of the histologies are present (i.e., endometrioid and squamous in this case). | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Endometrioid adenocarcinoma with squamous differentiation is coded to 8570 [Adenocarcinoma with squamous metaplasia].
The following row needs to be added to Table 2 in order to be able to correctly use the MP/H rules to reach this conclusion.
Column 1: Endometrioid adenocarcinoma Column 2: Squamous metaplasia Squamous differentiation Column 3: Adenocarcinoma with squamous metaplasia Column 4: 8570
The change will be made in the next revision of the rules. |
2011 |
|
|
20110042 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: How is histology coded when the initial biopsies of retroperitoneal mass demonstrated non-seminomatous germ cell tumor, but after neoadjuvant chemotherapy the final diagnosis on the radical orchiectomy specimen demonstrated mature teratoma, NOS (not stated to be malignant)? See Discussion. | A large retroperitoneal mass was found on CT scan. A biopsy demonstrated non-seminomatous germ cell tumor. The biopsy was done at an outside facility. Neither the CT scan nor biopsy pathology report is available for review. Following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the retroperitoneal mass decreased to 12 cm. Subsequently, the patient had a right radical orchiectomy. The final diagnosis per the pathology reports was a 3.5 cm mature teratoma (NOS, not stated to be "malignant") of right testicle. The patient then had resection of the retroperitoneal mass and biopsies. Pathology showed the "excision" specimen contained 6 benign lymph nodes and two of the "biopsy" specimens showed non-seminomatous germ cell neoplasm with IHC findings suggestive of a mix of embryonal carcinoma and a lesser component of yolk sac tumor. | This is a reportable case. Even though the pathology from the orchiectomy stated mature teratoma, NOS, the presence of lymph node metastases proves that this tumor is malignant. Code the histology as 9065/3 [germ cell tumor non-seminomatous].
The majority of germ cell tumors show the presence of multiple histologies. While the original tumor showed only mature teratoma, there were obviously yolk sac cells that were not detected on the sections taken from the primary tumor. Both teratoma and yolk sac are germ cell tumors. This explains why the pathologist gave you the diagnosis of germ cell tumor. The classification of "non-seminomatous" simply means that there was no seminomas present in the mixture of germ cell histologies. |
2011 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20110131 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Does a change in the 2008 diagnosis from refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB I) to a subsequent diagnosis of RAEB II in 2011 need to be reported to the state if the Hematopoietic Database indicates these diagnoses represent the same primary? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
RAEB I and RAEB II [9983/3] have the same histology code per the Heme DB. They are synonyms. Per Rule M2 one abstracts a single primary when there is a single histology. There is no change to report to the state regarding histology.
The I and II designators indicate the number of blasts in the bone marrow. In RAEB, the number of blasts measures the severity of the disease and is also a predictor of the chance of a genetic transformation to AML.
In this case, the patient's disease has progressed to a more severe phase - similar to a solid tumor progressing from Stage II to Stage III.
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 |
An official website of the United States government
