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: 11/13/2025 11:22 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20110102

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: For cases diagnosed 2010 and later, are idiopathic thrombocytopenia and autoimmune thrombocytopenia reportable?

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

Idiopathic and autoimmune types of thrombocytopenia are not reportable. Thrombocytopenia and thrombocythemia are not synonyms. Cytopenia and cythemia have different definitions. See Appendix F: Non-Reportable List for Hematopoietic Diseases.

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
20110055

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted for a bone marrow biopsy diagnosis of "acute myeloid leukemia (non-M3 type; favor FAB M1), probably arising in myelodysplastic syndrome;" and flow cytometry studies performed the same day were consistent with acute myeloid leukemia?

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

Ambiguous terminology is NOT used to determine histology for hematopoietic or lymphoid neoplasms. Therefore, the comment that the AML is "probably" arising in myelodysplastic syndrome is not used to determine the histology code. The term "favor" is also an ambiguous term and cannot be used to code histology.

This is a single histology per M2, abstract a single primary when there is a single histology. The histology is coded to 9861/3 [acute myeloid leukemia, NOS]

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
20110155 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a patient shows evidence of "MDS as well as essential thrombocytosis and JAK2 mutation positive polycythemia vera" 18 years after a diagnosis of "thrombocytosis and probable polycythemia that progressed to probable myelofibrosis"? See Discussion

Per consultation: an 83 year old patient started on hydroxurea 18 years ago following a diagnosis of thrombocytosis and probable polycythemia. It appears the polycythemia progressed to probable myelofibrosis. The possibility of an MDS needs to be considered.

Problem list: Polycythemia with probable progression to myelofibrosis or MDS.

Bone marrow biopsy two weeks later shows some progression of dysmegakaryocytopoiesis. Patient has evidence of MDS, as well as essential thrombocytosis and JAK2 mutation positive polycythemia vera.

On follow-up visit six weeks later: Continue to manage patient with hydroxyurea.

An additional six months later: Diagnosis is polycythemia with thrombocytosis.

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

This case should be accessioned as a single primary. Code the histology to 9920/3 [therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome].

The reportable diagnoses must first be separated from the non-reportable diagnoses mentioned in the consult. Thrombocytosis (NOS), polycythemia (NOS), and myelofibrosis (NOS) are not reportable terms. To verify this, look up each term in the Heme DB. No database matches list the preferred name or the alternative names as any of these NOS terms.

The reportable diagnoses are all from the post-bone marrow biopsy consult, "evidence of MDS, as well as essential thrombocytosis and JAK2 mutation positive polycythemia vera." The subsequent notes in the consult again only refer to this as non-reportable polycythemia (NOS) or thrombocytosis (NOS). Keep in mind that this patient has been undergoing treatment with chemotherapy (hydroxyurea) for many years for polycythemia (NOS); the patient was diagnosed with polycythemia, "about 18 years ago."

According to the Subject Matter Experts, as MDS progresses, it may manifest as several different subtypes, this is a part of the disease process and abstracting each subtype would result in over-reporting this disease. This patient has a complicated history. The consult information does not adequately document whether this patient's initial diagnosis of "polycythemia" was primary polycythemia (reportable) or a secondary polycythemia (not reportable). If the patient was initially diagnosed with a primary polycythemia 18 years ago the current diagnosis of "JAK2 mutation positive polycythemia vera" would not be a new primary. The manifestation of ET may be due to the progression of MDS. In either case, this patient does have a therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome which is the same primary as both PV and ET.

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
20110009 Diagnostic confirmation/Date of diagnosis--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are these fields coded for a 2/11/10 negative bone marrow biopsy with cytogenetic abnormalities if the physician makes a clinical diagnosis of refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia on 2/25/10? See Discussion.

2/11/10 bone marrow biopsy revealed "mild trilineal dysplastic changes in conjunction with chronicity of cytopenias is worrisome for MDS." Cytogenetics are positive for 5q deletion. Clinicopathologic correlation required for final diagnosis. On 2/25/10 the physician confirms a diagnosis of refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia.

Is the date of diagnosis 2/11/10 with diagnostic confirmation of 3 or 2/25/10 with diagnostic confirmation of 8?

The date of diagnosis is 2/25/10 and diagnostic confirmation is coded to 8 [clinical diagnosis only].

As the cytogenetics state, you need clinicopathologic correlation to get confirm a reportable diagnosis. There is no reportable diagnosis from the bone marrow biopsy. The cytogenetics were done (the pathologic part) and then the physician confirmed refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia [9985/3] (the clinical part). The diagnostic process and the determination of a reportable diagnosis were completed when the clinician made the statement that this is refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia.

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
20110090 MP/H Rules/Histology/Behavior--Ovary: How are these fields coded for a 20 cm borderline mucinous tumor with a 0.3 cm minor focus of intraepithelial carcinoma of the ovary that the pathologist stages as T1a?

According to the MP/H rules, code histology to 8010/2 [intraepithelial carcinoma] for cases diagnosed 2007-2014. Borderline mucinous tumor is not reportable to SEER.

The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Go to the Other Sites Histo rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual.

Start at the SINGLE TUMOR: IN SITU ONLY module, rule H1. Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. The only reportable histology in this case is intraepithelial carcinoma [8010/2].

2011
20110045 Reportability--Ovary: Is immature teratoma of the ovary reportable if a subsequent comment states that "the teratoma shows immature neuroepithelium, but no malignant elements"? There is conflicting information for this case. The final diagnosis conflicts with the comment. Go back and check with the physician to clarify his/her intent. If no further information can be obtained, the final diagnosis is preferred over the comment. This case is reportable based on the final diagnosis: "immature teratoma." 2011
20110094

Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: Is a "nipple sparing mastectomy" coded to 30 [subcutaneous mastectomy] or 40 [total (simple) mastectomy] if the nipple/areolar complex was not removed but the pathology specimen indicates some breast skin was removed? See Discussion.

In the past, the SEER Manual indicated that code 30 [subcutaneous mastectomies], which captured nipple-sparing mastectomies, would rarely be used because it was not typically performed as treatment for a malignancy. This note was removed from the 2010 SEER Manual, Appendix C. Code 30 which now states, "A subcutaneous mastectomy is the removal of breast tissue without the nipple and areolar complex or overlying skin." More "nipple-sparing mastectomies" are now being performed at certain facilities.

Should the Surgery of Primary Site field be coded to 30 when a nipple-sparing mastectomy with reconstruction is performed, even if there is skin removal? Or, does the skin removal indicate that this is not a subcutaneous mastectomy, and therefore code 43 [Total (simple) mastectomy with reconstruction, NOS] applies?

Code Surgery of Primary Site to 30 [Subcutaneous mastectomy] for this case.

Assign code 30 when the nipple and areolar complex are NOT removed. Assign code 40 (or higher) when the nipple and areolar complex ARE removed.

2011
20110030 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: If and when did Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) become a reportable neoplasm? See Discussion. Per the Histiocytosis Association of America, "Over the years, cancer treatments have been used in patients with histiocytosis. Consequently, hematologists and oncologists, who treat cancer, also treat children with Langerhans cell histiocytosis. However, the disease is not cancer."

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

Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) [9751/3] is reportable to all agencies starting for cases diagnosed 1/1/2010 and later. See Appendix D: New Histology Terms and Codes.

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
20110043 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Which specimen should be used to code histology when a core biopsy revealed an unknown sized DCIS, comedo type and the partial mastectomy specimen showed only a 2mm focus of DCIS, solid pattern? See Discussion.

Should the histology be coded from the needle core biopsy or the partial mastectomy specimen? Patient had a needle core biopsy that revealed DCIS, comedo type, cribriform pattern, no tumor size given. Subsequently, the patient had a partial mastectomy which revealed DCIS, noncomedo type, solid pattern, largest focus of DCIS was 0.2cm.

Should the histology code be 8501/2 or 8230/2? The microscopic description on the partial mastectomy says that the previous core needle biopsy site revealed several foci of DCIS.

 Code the histology from the most representative specimen (the specimen with the MOST tumor tissue). Compare the size of tumor in the two specimens. If the tumor size is not available for both procedural specimens, code histology from the mastectomy specimen rather than the needle biopsy specimen. 2011