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: 02/22/2026 20:14 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20120041 Primary site/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site coded if the patient presents with diffuse B cell lymphoma involving the nasopharynx and right maxillary sinus with bilateral cervical, right supraclavicular and axillary lymph nodes? See Discussion.

There is one mass in the nasopharynx and right maxillary sinus and the site of origin cannot be determined for this diffuse B-cell lymphoma. The patient also has bilateral cervical, right supraclavicular and axillary lymph nodes.

Should the primary site be coded per Module 7 Rule PH25 because regional nodes are involved or Rule PH22 because both regional and distant nodes are involved? If rule PH22 is used, what is the primary site?

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

Code the primary site to C119 [nasopharynx] per Rule PH25.

Per our subject matter expert, use Module 7 Rule PH25 to code the primary site to an organ (nasopharynx and maxillary sinus) because an organ(s) and its regional lymph nodes are involved. The distant lymph nodes are simply part of the staging (the lymphoma has progressed to another lymph node region).

Diffuse large B cell lymphoma originating in the oral cavity and maxillofacial region is rare, but documented. The most common sites for this rare neoplasm are Waldeyer ring, tonsils, nasopharynx, base of tongue, and palatine tonsil. There are also rare cases of diffuse large B cell lymphoma originating in the maxillary sinus. The percentage of cases arising in the nasopharynx is greater than those originating in the maxillary sinus.

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
20120011

Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is there a timing rule used to recode histology should a more specific diagnosis of refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB) be confirmed after an initial diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)? How many primaries are abstracted if RAEB subsequently evolves toward an acute myeloid leukemia? See Discussion.

Facility A: 4/8/2010 Bone Marrow biopsy: Features most compatible with MDS. (No treatment administered.) 7/2/2010 Peripherial Blood: Transforming Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS). COMMENT: Clonal abnormality compatible with MDS/acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in all metaphases examined. (Still no treatment administered.)

Facility B: 10/6/2010 Patient now presents for evaluation and treatment. Patient started on Vidaza. 10/07/10 Bone Marrow biopsy: Refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB-2) COMMENT: Evolution towards AML with myelodysplasia related changes considered; cytogenetic analysis reveals abnormalities most compatible with MDS and/or AML.

Based on the Heme Manual and DB, the 4/8/2010 diagnosis of MDS, NOS (9989/3) is the first primary. Should the 7/2/2010 diagnosis of transforming MDS to AML (9861/3) be a new, second primary?

Based on the Abstractor Note for MDS in the Heme DB for MDS, "If the characteristics of a specific subtype of MDS develop later in the course of the disease, change the histology code to the more specific diagnosis." Based on this note, should the MDS histology code [9989/3] be changed to refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB-2) [9983/3] from the biopsy taken on 10/7/2010 (one day after treatment began) that revealed RAEB-2 with evolution towards AML?

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

There is no time limit set to update histology to a more specific disease process if a patient has an initial NOS histology identified. Unlike solid tumors, hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms may take a year or more to manifest the specific disease. This is simply a part of the "disease characteristics."

Abstract a single primary per M2, a single histology represents a single primary. Code the histology to 9983/3 [MDS/RAEB-2.]

The Heme DB guidelines were interpreted correctly. MDS/RAEB can transform to AML and would be two separate primaries there had also been a reportable diagnosis of AML. The 7/2/2010 peripheral blood showed MDS and a clonal abnormality that was "compatible with MDS/AML." The 10/7/2010 bone marrow biopsy showed only RAEB-2 with "evolution towards AML with myelodysplasia related changes." Ambiguous terminology is only used to help determine reportability; it not used to code a more specific histology. In this case, there was only ambiguous terminology used to describe the AML.

It is important to understand the implication of incorrectly assigning histology codes for hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasm using ambiguous terminology. Using this case as an example, the patient was not treated until three months after the 7/2/2010 peripheral blood diagnosis of MDS compatible with MDS/AML. The medical literature indicates that AML, if left untreated, is usually fatal within 1-3 months. The treatment given 10/6/2010, 3 months after the "compatible with" diagnosis, was a drug used to treat MDS and not AML.

The other issue with this case is that the bone marrow examination, which is more reliable than peripheral blood, showed only "evolution towards AML." This means that the bone marrow is exhibiting the changes seen in the final stages of MDS prior to progression to AML. Wait for a definitive diagnosis of AML and/or treatment for AML before abstracting the second primary.

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
20120085

Reportability--Ovary: Are mature teratomas of the ovary reportable? See Discussion.

Per a NAACCR Webinar from February 2011 (Testis), "All adult (post-puberty) pure mature teratoma tumors are malignant and should be coded 9080/3.' Does this apply to ovarian cases? The medical record entries all seem to indicate this a benign process.

Should this NAACCR Webinar info be applied specifically to testicular cases? Would this be a reportable case if the primary site were testis?

The patient also has a history of medullary carcinoma of the thyroid. SINQ 20100052 indicates a thyroid primary may present in an ovarian teratoma. Would this be reportable, or must there be mention of the histology other than, or in addition to, the mature teratoma?

Mature teratomas in the ovary are benign [9080/0].

For testis, mature teratoma in an adult is malignant (9080/3); however, mature teratoma in a child is benign (9080/0).

With regard to the thyroid issue, from the information above, the medullary carcinoma in the patient's thyroid is clearly a separate event. According to our expert pathologist consultant, "thyroid tissue is one of the many tissue types that may be seen in teratomas. When the teratoma has exclusively or predominantly thyroid tissue the term struma ovarii is used Adenoma or carcinoma of the thyroid type may be seen in this thyroid tissue. If medullary carcinoma were present in the thyroid tissue in the ovary/teratoma, there would be mention of it in the path report."

 2012
20120064

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: If hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis treated with several rounds of chemotherapy is reportable, what is the primary site?

Patient was diagnosed with hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis on blood and bone marrow biopsy. This was also referred to in the chart as hemophagocytosis and hemophagocytic syndrome. Hemophagocytic syndrome is listed in the Heme DB as 9724/3. The patient had several rounds of fairly aggressive chemotherapy. Would the correct primary site for histology 9724/3 be C421 [bone marrow], or C779 [lymph nodes, NOS]? See SINQ 20100113.

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

Hemophagocytic syndrome, also known as hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH), is not reportable. Per Appendix F, HLH is caused by an over stimulated immune system (infection, etc.). It is a clinical syndrome associated with a variety of underlying conditions. To be reportable, a child's diagnosis must state "fulminant hemophagocytic syndrome" to be reportable (9724/3). This is not the situation in this case.

"Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis" is also listed in 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.

 2012
20120045 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the primary site of a diffuse large B-cell lymphoma described on a PET and an abdominal CT scan as a large pelvic mass displacing bladder and uterus, inseparable from anus, right pelvic sidewall, cervix and bilateral ovaries and per the clinician as stage IIE? See Discussion.

PET: large pelvic mass displacing bladder and uterus, inseparable from anus, right pelvic sidewall, cervix and bilateral ovaries. Diffuse abnormal uptake within this mass as well as the adjacent structures. No regional hypermetabolic adenopathy is noted and no imaging evidence of distant metastatic disease. The PET also demonstrated diffuse abnormal uptake within the pelvic mass as well as the adjacent structures.

CT abdomen: large pelvic mass invading vagina and inseparable from the anus, right pelvic sidewall, cervix and bilateral ovaries.

MD states: "stage IIE with invasion of vagina."

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

Per Rule 18, code the primary site to C775 [pelvic lymph nodes]. Per Rule PH18, code the primary site to the specified lymph node region when the site of lymphoma is described only as a mass. This rule also indicates that the Code pelvic lymph nodes [C775] when the lymph nodes are described as a pelvic mass.

This rule has been effect for SEER for over 20 years. It is based on the fact that a number of lymphomas that originate in nodes are not diagnosed until those nodes become matted or fixed. The presentation is then one of a "mass" in those nodal regions.

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
20120055 Surgery of Primary Site--Kidney, renal pelvis: How do you code a laparoscopic renal mass core biopsy followed by cryoablation of the tumor? See Discussion. The note under the local tumor destruction codes states "No specimen sent to pathology from this surgical event 10-15." The patient had a pathologic specimen submitted from his core biopsy, but this was not a tumor excision or excisional biopsy [codes 20, 26-27]. Is the correct surgery code 13 [cryosurgery] because the tumor was only ablated and not excised, or surgery code 23 [any combination of 20 or 26-27 with cryosurgery] because a pathology specimen was submitted? Code for Surgery of Primary Site to 13 [Cryosurgery]. While the core biopsy provided a pathology specimen, it is not coded as surgery of the primary site. 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
20120030

MP/H Rules/Histology- -Melanoma: What is the correct histology code if the final diagnosis for an excisional biopsy specimen is reported as "malignant melanoma, superficial spreading type" but the under the "cell type" section in the CAP protocol layout of the pathology report it lists "cell type: epithelioid"? See Discussion.

The MP/H rules do not address the concept of "cell type" for melanomas when the pathologist uses the CAP protocol to report findings and the cell type listed in that section of the report differs from the specific cell type mentioned in the final diagnosis. Does a case have two specific cell types when the final diagnosis and the "cell type" sections of a single pathology report indicate two more specific melanoma histologies?

Pre-2007 SINQ entries indicate the cell type should be coded. However, if it differs from the specific cell type listed in the final diagnosis does it matter? Do the MP/H rules still take the cell type into account?

Code the histology to malignant melanoma, superficial spreading type [8743/3] based on the final diagnosis. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a melanoma primary, use the Melanoma Histology rules to determine the histology code because there are site specific rules for cutaneous melanomas.

Start at Rule H1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order from Rule H1 to Rule H10. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the applicable Module. Code the more specific histologic term when the diagnosis is melanoma, NOS [8720] with a single specific type (i.e., superficial spreading) mentioned in the final diagnosis.

The final diagnosis takes precedence over the CAP protocol. The CAP protocol may be used when it provides additional or noncontradictory information, but that does not apply in this case.

 2012
20120014 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology coded if the pathology report final diagnosis is "plasma cell dyscrasia, consistent with multiple myeloma" when no further work-up is performed because the patient either refuses additional testing or dies?

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

Code the histology to 9732/3 [multiple myeloma].

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 multiple myeloma on the pathology report.

The instruction "Do not code histology based on ambiguous terminology" is intended to be used when there is a reportable and reportable stated in the diagnosis. Ambiguous terminology cannot be used to report the more specific diagnosis in cases of 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.

2012
20120074 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a patient is diagnosed in 2004 with extranodal diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) of the stomach followed by a 2011 diagnosis of DLBCL involving abdominal lymph nodes? See Discussion. In 2004 a patient's extranodal DLBCL was treated with a partial gastrectomy at another facility. A recurrence of DLBCL was diagnosed in 2011 by a fine needle aspiration of abdominal lymph nodes. The patient presented to this facility for chemotherapy.

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

This case is accessioned as a single primary. Code the histology to 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma] and diagnosis date to 2004. Per Rule M2, abstract as a single primary when there is a single histology.

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