Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20110073 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Sarcoma: Does a prior clinical diagnosis of a metastatic deposit for a previously diagnosed sarcoma have priority if the diagnosis on a subsequent resection (18 months later) indicates it is also a sarcoma but does not state it represents metastasis from the original sarcoma primary? See Discussion. |
1/28/08 Patient was diagnosed with spindle cell sarcoma in the right gluteus muscle. Metastatic tumors were found in a vertebral body and in the lung. Chemotherapy was started.
4/22/08 PET scan done to evaluate response to chemo. The primary tumor had increased in size. New mass in the left thigh that was highly suspicious for metastasis found. (The left thigh tumor was not accessioned at that time as it was described as a metastatic tumor.)
7/3/09 Left thigh tumor was resected and path revealed spindle cell sarcoma. There was no mention that it represented metastasis.
Does the left thigh tumor represent a new primary per rule M12? Or does the previous clinical description of the left thigh tumor representing metastasis have priority? |
this is a single primary per Rule M1. According to our expert pathologist, "if multiple solid tissue tumors are present (sarcomas), then almost always there is one primary and the rest are metastases. There are infrequent occasions of multifocal liposarcoma or osteosarcoma occurring, but the patient would be treated as a patient with metastatic disease."
The steps used to arrive at this answer are:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a soft tissue primary, use one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Other Sites MP rules to determine the number of primaries because soft tissue primaries do not have site specific rules.
Go to the UNKNOWN IF SINGLE OR MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M1.
Rule M1 states, "It is not possible to determine if there is a single tumor or multiple tumors, opt for a single tumor and abstract a single primary." Given the information from the expert pathologist, this case should be reported as a single primary applying this rule. |
2011 |
|
|
20110151 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is "common variable immunodeficiency" which is also known as acquired hypogammaglobulinemia reportable? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph. Common variable immunodeficiency (acquired hypogammaglobulinemia) is not a reportable condition. Common variable immunodeficiency represents a group of approximately 150 primary immunodeficiencies that have a common set of symptoms but different underlying causes, both benign and malignant. The case is not reportable unless this immunodeficiency diagnosis is accompanied by a diagnosis of a cancer or a reportable hematopoietic or lymphoid neoplasm. 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 | |
|
|
20110058 | Date of diagnosis/Flag: Will the Date of Diagnosis Flag ever be used if the instructions for coding Date of Diagnosis are followed? See Discussion. | If an abstractor follows the instructions for coding the Date of Diagnosis and can at least estimate a year of diagnosis, in what scenario will the Flag be used?
Per the 2010 SEER Manual,
Page 49 Date of Diagnosis, second paragraph, "Regardless of the format, at least Year of diagnosis must be known or estimated. Year of diagnosis cannot be blank or unknown." The manual gives the following guidelines for coding diagnosis date/flag:
Page 50, Coding Instructions: 3. If no information about the date of diagnosis is available a. Use the date of admission as the date of diagnosis b. In the absence of an admission date, code the date of first treatment as the date of diagnosis.
Page 51, Coding Instructions: 9. Estimate the date of diagnosis if an exact date is not available. Use all information available to calculate the month and year of diagnosis.
Page 53, Date of Diagnosis Flag, Coding Instructions: Always leave blank. Date of Diagnosis will always be a full or partial date recorded. |
The date of diagnosis flag should always be blank. | 2011 |
|
|
20110020 | Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is cancer status to be coded when a patient diagnosed with MDS, undergoes treatment, but the MDS subsequently transforms to AML? | If the bone marrow no longer shows evidence of MDS, the cancer status for the MDS is disease-free. When cancer status is coded as disease-free (NED), it means that currently there is no clinical evidence of this disease (MDS). | 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 |
|
|
20120056 | First course treatment--Corpus Uteri: Should Arimidex be coded as hormone therapy for an endometrioid adenocarcinoma? See Discussion. | Per the SEER Manual, endometrial cancers may be treated with progesterone which is coded as hormone therapy for these primaries. As endometrioid adenocarcinomas are hormonally-dependent carcinomas, should an aromatase inhibitor or anti-estrogen agent also be coded as hormone therapy? | Arimidex has not been approved to treat endometrial cancer. It is not prescribed for pre-menopausal women. Clarify with the physician why the drug was being used. If the physician states Arimidex was given to reduce tumor burden, code as hormone therapy.
See the SEER*Rx interactive database, http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/seerrx/ |
2012 |
|
|
20120048 | MP/H Rules/Primary site: Can you clarify how you interpreted the term "synchronous" to appropriately code the primary site to C68.9 [urinary tract] for SINQ 20110119 and did not use that code for SINQ 20100025 when both cases used MP/H Rule M8 to determine the number of primaries? See Discussion. | In SINQ 20100025 a patient was diagnosed with multiple urinary system tumors over a year apart. Rule M8 applies (single primary) and the primary site was left coded to the original primary site, C65.9 [renal pelvis]. In SINQ 20110119 a patient is diagnosed with multiple urinary system tumors within a month of each other, again rule M8 applies (single primary) and the primary site was coded to C68.9 [urinary system, NOS].
In both cases, rule M8 applies. However, the tumors were not diagnosed synchronously (e.g., one month apart in one case and greater than one year apart in the other). When the SINQ answer states, "same time" or "synchronous" does this mean during the same event? If not, what is the time range for "same time" or "synchronous"?
Please clarify when it is appropriate to code the primary site to C68.9 [urinary system, NOS] for Rule M8 and when it is not. |
For the purpose of applying the MP/H rules, the term "synchronous" means that the two diagnoses occurred at the same time or less than or equal to 60 days apart.
The case in SINQ 20100025 was not synchronous. The first lesion in the renal pelvis [C65.9] occurred in 1/08 and the subsequent tumors were diagnosed in 5/09, more than one year apart. In this case, you do not go back to change the primary site code on the original abstract.
The case in SINQ 20110119 was diagnosed synchronously, the first lesion in the bladder [C67.9] was diagnosed in 11/09 and the second lesion in the renal pelvis [C65.9] was diagnosed in 12/09, less than 60 days apart. Because the lesions were synchronous, the primary site is coded urinary system, NOS [C68.9]. |
2012 |
|
|
20120038 | Reportability/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is Monoclonal B-lymphocytosis of uncertain significance (MLUS) reportable? If so, what is the correct histology code? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Appendix F, monoclonal B-lymphocytosis of uncertain significance (MLUS) is not reportable.
Some papers point out that a lymphocyte count less than five thousand is equivalent to monoclonal B-lymphocytosis of uncertain significance (MLUS) or monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL). A lymphocyte count of five to thirty thousand could be smoldering chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The diagnosis of MLUS is a benign process that does not meet the criteria for CLL.
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. |
2012 | |
|
|
20120062 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned if a patient has a history of breast cancer in 2006 treated with bilateral mastectomies and in 2011 is found to have invasive carcinoma in "breast tissue, right lumpectomy"? See Discussion. |
Patient was originally diagnosed in June 2006, with right breast cancer and underwent lumpectomy and chemotherapy. This was followed by a bilateral mastectomy with reconstruction in January of 2007 that showed no residual tumor in the breast but 1 positive right axillary lymph node. The patient started Arimidex in May 2007 and had ongoing follow-up. In November 2011, the patient noted a "lump to her right upper reconstructed breast at approximately 2:00." Needle biopsy in December 2011 showed invasive carcinoma and the patient underwent a lumpectomy. The lumpectomy pathology report stated, "Breast tissue, right, lumpectomy: poorly differentiated infiltrating ductal cancer." There is no comparison of the current pathology to the previous pathology, as the previous lumpectomy/mastectomy was done at another facility. The patient is being treated at this facility with radiation as if this is a "recurrent/persistent right sided breast cancer." Should this case be classified as a new primary because the pathology report indicates the malignancy was in breast tissue? Or is this actually a chest wall recurrence given the fact that the patient was previously treated with bilateral mastectomies? Should this case be treated as indicated in SINQ 20110111? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession two primaries, right breast cancer diagnosed in June 2006 and a subsequent right breast primary diagnosed in December 2011. The steps used to arrive at this decision are: Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). Go to the Breast MP rules because site specific rules exist for this primary. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M4. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. Accession two primaries, tumors diagnosed more than five (5) years apart are multiple primaries. If the pathology report stated the tumor originated in residual breast tissue, then this is a new tumor and, therefore, a new primary per rule M5. If the pathology report stated the tumor arose in the chest wall and/or there is no designation of residual breast tissue, then this is a regional metastasis and not a new primary. |
2012 |
|
|
20120002 | Histology/Diagnostic confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are histology and diagnostic confirmation coded when a patient has a clinical diagnosis of lymphoma but a pathologic diagnosis of malignant neoplasm, NOS? See Discussion. |
This patient had CT scans showing extensive bilateral retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy suspicious for lymphoma and left axillary lymphadenopathy. Thin core biopsies were done of the left axillary lymph nodes and immunohistology pathology was read as malignant neoplasm with extensive necrosis. Flow cytometry analysis of the sample shows no definitive or sufficient CD45+ events for informative analysis. Karyotype analysis could not be performed on this specimen due to inadequate sample. FISH analysis using IGH break apart probe showed no evidence of clonal rearrangement in limited number of cells available for analysis. The physician's diagnosis is probable lymphoma, no further workup felt necessary because patient would not tolerate chemotherapy anyway and hospice was felt most appropriate care for patient.
The definitive diagnostic method for lymphoma, NOS is histologic confirmation, but the only histologic confirmation was of "malignant neoplasm with extensive necrosis." Should the histology and diagnostic confirmation be coded as lymphoma, NOS [9590/3] and imaging without microscopic confirmation [7] or malignancy, NOS [8000/3] and positive histology [1]? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to 9590/3 [malignant lymphoma, NOS] and the diagnostic confirmation to 7 [radiology and other imaging techniques without microscopic confirmation]. Per the Diagnostic Confirmation Coding Instructions for Heme and Lymphatic Neoplasms, use code 1 when ONLY the biopsy was used to diagnose the specific histology. The biopsy only confirmed a malignancy; the scan confirmed the specific diagnosis of lymphoma.
Note that a clinical diagnosis can be a definitive diagnostic method for malignant lymphoma, NOS. In this case, the biopsy was inadequate and a more specific diagnosis could not be made by histology. Because no further work-up was pursued, this NOS diagnosis of malignant lymphoma was a clinical diagnosis only.
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. |
2012 |
An official website of the United States government
