| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20120013 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should a 2011 diagnosis of Langerhans cell histiocytosis be accessioned as a reportable case if the patient had a disease free interval between the 2011 diagnosis and when the patient was initially diagnosed with Langerhans cell histiocytosis prior to 2010? See Discussion. |
The patient was diagnosed with Langerhans cell histiocytosis as a child when the disease was not reportable [9751/1]. The patient was disease free until a recurrence in 2011. Langerhans cell histiocytosis is reportable if diagnosed 1/1/2010 and later [9751/3]. The Heme Manual states this is a single primary, but the behavior has changed from borderline to malignant since the initial diagnosis. |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph. Do not accession the 2011 diagnosis of Langerhans cell histiocytosis. In the Abstractor Notes section of the Heme DB is indicates this is reportable for cases diagnosed 2010 and later. However, this patient was initially diagnosed prior to 2010 when it was not a reportable disease process. The histology code for Langerhans cell histiocytosis has not changed over time. The histology code for cases of Langerhans cell histiocytosis diagnosed prior to 2010 was also 9751 per the ICD-O-3. The only change since 2010 was in the behavior code for this disease. It changed from borderline [/1] to malignant [/3]. The current disease represents a recurrence of the previous Langerhans cell histiocytosis. Per the Multiple Primary rules, Rule M2, a single histology is a single primary. The original diagnosis was made before the disease was reportable; do not report the disease recurrence or progression as a new 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 |
|
|
20120091 | Reportability/Behavior--Kidney: Is epithelioid angiomyolipoma (AML) of the kidney a reportable malignancy? See Discussion. | The addendum final diagnosis on a pathology report for a kidney core needle biopsy included the results of additional stains performed on the tissue. It indicated the morphology was most consistent with epithelioid angiomyolipoma. Further comments in the body of the report indicate these tumors are now considered malignant neoplasms with the capacity to be locally aggressive and they can potentially metastasize. There is no mention of a metastasis in this particular case. | Epithelioid angiomyolipoma (AML) [8860/0] of the kidney is not reportable unless stated to be malignant.
If the pathologist confirms this is a malignancy, apply ICD-O-3 Rule F (Matrix principle) and assign the behavior code /3. If confirmation is received, accession the case using the morphology code 8860/3 [malignant angiomyolipoma]. |
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 |
|
|
20120042 | Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded if a pelvic mass biopsy is positive for B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma and a mediastinal lymph node biopsy is positive for follicular lymphoma, grade 1? See Discussion. | CT guided core biopsy of pelvic mass is positive for B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Bone marrow biopsy is negative. Mediastinoscopy with mediastinal and pretracheal nodes biopsy is positive for follicular lymphoma grade 1 of 2. The patient has a PET demonstrating positive extensive metastatic disease with nodes in neck, chest, abdomen/pelvis and bone involvement. Should the histology be coded 9591/3 [NHL, NOS] or 9695/3 [FL, grade 1]? Which rule applies?
The table of contents for the Hematopoietic Manual indicates Module 8 for these histologies, however, Module 8 rules do not seem to apply. Continuing on to Module 9, the first rule that applies is PH30. PH30 states use the Heme DB to determine primary site/histology. The Heme DB indicates these are separate primaries, but both histologies are B-cell lymphomas. |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to 9695/3 [follicular lymphoma, grade 1] per PH29.
Under the Alternate Names section of the Heme DB, B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma is synonym for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS and B-cell lymphoma, NOS.
Per PH29, one codes the histology when there is one non-specific histology (NHL, NOS) and one specific histology (FL, grade 1). You are also required to confirm the specific and the non-specific (NOS) histology represent the same primary using the Multiple Primaries Calculator. The calculator indicates these are the same 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 |
|
|
20120015 | Diagnostic confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How does one determine and code a clinical diagnosis for the diagnostic confirmation in patient diagnosed with essential thrombocythemia? See Discussion. |
The Heme DB originally stated the Definitive Diagnostic Method is coded to 8 [clinical diagnosis only] while an updated version stated it can coded as a clinical diagnosis or it can be based on the results of a bone marrow biopsy or a genetic test. The Abstractor Note section specifies this is a diagnosis of exclusion. According to a recent Web-based training seminar, the JAK-2 diagnosis would be coded 5 [positive laboratory test/marker study]. Doesn't the Definitive Diagnostic Method of a clinical diagnosis/diagnosis of exclusion mean that the diagnostic confirmation of essential thrombocythemia will always be coded as 8 [clinical diagnosis only]? Many people use code 3 for positive bone marrow biopsy and genetics (JAK-2), but the bone marrow is usually reported as only borderline or is stated to be abnormal for a person's age.
|
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the diagnostic confirmation to 8 [clinical diagnosis only] in this case.
Per the Heme DB, JAK-2 is only positive in about 50% of essential thrombocythemia (ET) patients. In addition, a positive JAK-2 test does not identify the type of myeloproliferative disease (MPN) the patient has, only the presence or absence of the JAK-2 mutation.
The WHO guidelines for diagnosing ET are: elevated platelet count over months and the elimination of other causes for an elevated platelet count (such as polycythemia vera (PV), chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), idiopathic myelofibrosis, or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)); the absence of Philadelphia chromosome, BCR/ABL fusion gene; and del(5q), t(3;3)(q21;26),inv(3)(q21q26)).
Subsequently, the physician rules out any underlying causes of thrombocytosis such as an inflammation or infection, other neoplasms, and prior splenectomy.
Ultimately, there is a diagnosis of exclusion. In other words, all other causes for the elevated platelet count have been excluded. The physician assembles the information from the blood counts, bone marrow and JAK-2 testing along with the information that excludes all other diseases and makes a clinical diagnosis of 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. |
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 |
|
|
20120079 | Reportability: Is positive urine cytology (ex: malignant cells interpreted as carcinoma) by itself reportable? If so, is the case coded to bladder by default or is is coded to C689, urinary system, NOS? | Urine cytology positive for malignancy is reportable. Code the primary site to C689 in the absence of any other information.
However, if a subsequent biopsy of a urinary site is negative, do not report the case.
For 2013 diagnoses and forward, report these cases when they are encountered. Do not implement new/additional casefinding methods to capture these cases. As always, do not report cytology cases with ambiguous terminology. |
2012 | |
|
|
20120067 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: How is the histology coded for a poorly differentiated thyroid carcinoma with rhabdoid phenotype arising in a papillary carcinoma? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology as papillary carcinoma, poorly differentiated [8260/33].
The WHO classification lists grade III papillary carcinoma as one of the synonyms for poorly differentiated thyroid carcinoma.
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 Other Sites Histo rules because site specific rules have not been developed for this primary. Start with the SINGLE TUMOR: INVASIVE ONLY module, rule H8. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. Per rule H13 "phenotype" is not a term used to code a more specific histology. Moving to Rule H14 the histology is coded 8260/3 [papillary adenocarcinoma]. |
2012 | |
|
|
20120086 | Primary site: What is the single primary site used for a patient with multiple tumors in the duodenum and jejunum? See discussion. | The patient has a tumor in the jejunum and another tumor in the duodenum. Both tumors have the same histology. This disease process is a single primary per Other Sites Rule M18. Is the primary site coded to the more invasive tumor? If the tumors are equally invasive, is the primary site coded to C179? | Code the primary site to C179 [small intestine, NOS] for multiple invasive tumors of the small intestine accessioned as a single primary.
The steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Step 1: Go to the Primary Site subsection located in Section IV of the 2012 SEER Manual titled "Description of This Neoplasm."
Step 2: Apply instruction 5. "Code the last digit of the primary site code to '9' for single primaries, when multiple tumors arise in different subsites of the same anatomic site and the point of origin cannot be determined." Code the primary site to C179 [small intestine, NOS].
When multiple tumors arising in different subsites are accessioned as a single primary, the primary site is coded to the NOS code, in this case small intestine, NOS [C179]. The level of invasion does not determine the primary site, unless one or more of the tumors is in situ and another is invasive. |
2012 |
Home
