Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20130173 | Histology/Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site and histology coded when a bladder biopsy reveals myeloid sarcoma and a simultaneously performed bone marrow biopsy demonstrates acute myeloid leukemia? See Discussion. | 12/22/11 Bladder biopsy: myeloid sarcoma,
12/22/11 Bone marrow biopsy: acute myeloid leukemia.
Presenting symptoms were urological with three month history of painful hematuria and hydronephrosis with solid mass of bladder.
Prior to biopsy hem/onc states bladder mass of unknown pathology. CBC revealed peripheral blasts and Auer rods -- presumed diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). No statement from physician as to where disease originated. |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule M3, abstract a single primary when a sarcoma (myeloid sarcoma) is diagnosed either simultaneously or after a leukemia of the same lineage (acute myeloid leukemia). Per the notes for Rule M3, the sarcoma is a solid manifestation of the associate leukemia.
Per PH10, code the histology to 9861/3 [acute myeloid leukemia] and the primary site to C421 [bone marrow]. PH10 states one is to code the primary site bone marrow (C421) and code the histology acute myeloid leukemia, NOS (9861/3) or any of the specific AML histologies (9840/3, 9865/3-9867/3, 9869/3-9874/3, 9891/3, 9895/3-9898/3, 9910/3, 9911/3 and 9931/3) when the diagnosis is myeloid sarcoma (9930/3) AND there is a simultaneous or previous diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia.
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. |
2013 |
|
|
20130125 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is self-healing Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) of the skin reportable? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This is a reportable primary. Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) [9751/3] is a reportable neoplasm.
The term "self-healing" means that the neoplasm regressed without treatment. This is a known phenomenon.
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. |
2013 | |
|
|
20130027 | Reportability--Are well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors and grade 1 neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix now reportable? See Discussion. |
The terminology for carcinoid tumors has changed. The current terminology used is "neuroendocrine tumor." Are well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix non-reportable because carcinoid, NOS of the appendix has a borderline behavior code [8240/1]? When the histology/behavior codes for the term "well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" became 8240/3, did SEER intend this change to also apply to appendix primaries? If so, for which diagnosis year did this change go into effect? |
Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors and grade 1 neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix are reportable because these tumors have a morphology code 8240/3 per the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Digestive System. However, per the ICD-O-3, carcinoid tumors of the appendix have a behavior code of /1 [borderline]. The terminology of neuroendocrine tumors is evolving and current thinking at the international level is that carcinoid/WD NET of appendix is reportable. However, reportability in the United States is based on ICD-O-3. The histology code for "Carcinoid of appendix" is 8240/1; the histology code for a carcinoids of all other primary sites is 8240/3. Until the United States adopts the proposed changes for ICD-O-3, reportability of appendix cases is as follows:
|
2013 |
|
|
20130134 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: According to the hematopoietic database, systemic mastocytosis is reportable; does that include INDOLENT systemic mastocytosis (which is not listed in the list of alternative names)? |
For cases diagnosed 2018 and forward, indolent systemic mastocytosis is not reportable (9741/1). Smoldering systemic mastocytosis is reportable (9741/3). |
2013 | |
|
|
20130194 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are blood vessel tumors arising in CNS sites reportable? See Discussion. |
Previous instructions from the CDC (Cancer - Collection and Coding Clarification for CNS Tumors - NPCR) stated that non-malignant blood vessel tumors in CNS sites are reportable and should be coded to the CNS site in which they arose. SINQ 20081113 also states that a blood vessel tumor, cavernoma/cavernous hemangioma, in the brain is reportable. However, SINQ 20120034 contradicts this previous answer stating the site should be coded to C490 [blood vessel] for a blood vessel tumor (venous angioma) in the brain. If blood vessel tumors arising in a CNS site are no longer reportable, please specify the site/histology codes for these non-reportable tumors and when this change took place. |
Vascular tumors of the CNS are reportable when they arise in the dura or parenchyma of the CNS and should be coded accordingly. The instructions in the CDC book regarding primary site coding are not the most current instructions.SEER assumed responsibility for brain and CNS reporting instructions in 2007. The tumor in SINQ 20120034 is not reportable because it arises in a blood vessel. The cavernous hemangioma in SINQ 20081113 is reportable because the primary site is the white matter of the cerebral cortex. |
2013 |
|
|
20130100 | Multiple primaries/Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are there and how should I code the primary site(s)? See discussion. |
Patient had a hemicolectomy and a salpingo-oophorectomy and was found to have diffuse large B cell lymphoma in the colon (10 cm cecal mass), 3/16 regional lymph nodes involved with lymphoma. Fallopian tube showed involvement with diffuse large B Cell lymphoma.
Multiple primaries - Colon and fallopian tube?
One primary - Colon? Stage IV, or lymphoma from an unknown primary? Note: There were no other lymph nodes involved. |
Use Rule M2. Abstract as a single primary when there is a single histology.
When you have questions about how to code the primary site, start with the abstractor notes. If the answer isn't found there go to Module 7 (a specific module to help code primary site for lymphomas).
The abstractor notes for DLBCL in this case do not provide information you can use for this case. Go to Module 7 in the PH rules.
Use Rule PH25 Code the primary site to the organ when lymphoma is present in an organ and that organ’s regional lymph nodes. Code the primary site to colon (organ and regional lymph nodes involved). The fallopian tube is secondary involvement. As is common with lymphomas, there can be more than one organ involved. You can differentiate the primary site from the secondary site(s) because of the large colon mass with regional lymph node involvement. |
2013 |
|
|
20130024 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: How many primaries are accessioned and what rule applies when the patient has a mixed tumor with a urothelial carcinoma, NOS and a more specific histologic type followed by a diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma? See Discussion. |
The MP/H Rules do not specifically cover how to process urothelial carcinomas with a more specific type of carcinoma. Patient 1: Diagnosed in April 2010 with invasive urothelial carcinoma with signet ring features of the bladder. Site and histology are coded as C679 [bladder] and 8490/3 [signet ring cell carcinoma]. In January 2012 a subsequent diagnosis of invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder is made [C679, 8120/3]. Patient 2: Diagnosed in November 2009 with invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma with micropapillary and mucinous features of the bladder. Site and histology are coded C679 [bladder] and 8480/3 [mucinous carcinoma]. In April 2012 a subsequent diagnosis of high grade papillary and flat urothelial carcinoma without evidence of invasion is made [C679, 8130/2]. Does rule M9 apply and these are new primaries? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 and later, accession two primaries for each patient, signet ring cell carcinoma of the bladder and invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder for patient 1 and mucinous carcinoma of the bladder and non-invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma of the bladder for patient 2. 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 Urinary MP rules because site specific rules exist for this primary. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. For both patients, rule M9 applies because the tumors have histology codes that are different at the second (xxx) number. This guideline will be reviewed for the next version of the MP/H Rules. |
2013 |
|
|
20130044 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient has a biopsy diagnosis of extraosseous plasmacytoma followed fourteen days later with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma on imaging? See Discussion. | On 2/3/12 the patient was diagnosed via biopsy with an extraosseous (extramedullary) plasmacytoma filling both nasal cavities. On 2/16/12 a metastatic workup was performed and showed a lucent lesion in calvarium of Rt frontal bone. 2/17/12 radiation oncology consult states, "I believe this is most likely consistent with multiple myeloma." Subsequently, the 3/1/12 CT of the left shoulder showed a 3.6 cm lytic lesion of humeral head with cortical breakthrough consistent with metastasis or myeloma.
Per the Heme DB, extramedullary plasmacytoma can transform to multiple myeloma. Does that make this multiple primaries with the histologies coded to 9734/3 and 9732/3? |
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, multiple myeloma [9732/3] diagnosed on 2/3/12 per Rule M8. Abstract the acute neoplasm as a single primary when both a chronic and acute neoplasm are diagnosed simultaneously or within 21 days AND there is documentation of only one positive tissue biopsy.
This patient only had a tissue biopsy of the nasal cavity proving the chronic neoplasm (extraosseous plasmacytoma). The acute neoplasm (multiple myeloma) was diagnosed clinically based on the scans.
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. |
2013 |
|
|
20130031 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a plasmacytoma of the intervertebral disc is diagnosed in 2010 followed by a diagnosis of immature plasma cell myeloma by a right hip biopsy in 2011? See Discussion. |
The patient was diagnosed with intervertebral disc plasmacytoma and had radiation therapy to the pelvic bones in 2010. In 2011 (more than 21 days later) a right hip biopsy revealed immature plasma cell myeloma. There is clinical documentation that this is progression into myeloma. Per the Heme DB (Primary Site(s) and Definition sections) and Rule PH30, in the Heme Manual, the primary site is coded to C421 [bone marrow] and the histology is coded 9732/3 [plasma cell myeloma] when there is a clinical diagnosis of multiple myeloma and/or there is no documentation of a bone marrow biopsy or the results are unknown. This patient did have a bone marrow biopsy that indicates there are an increased plasma cells present; plasma cells represent less than 10%. The skeletal survey and bone scan did not reveal any further lesions. Is this progression of disease because there is only one lesion in the right hip 8 months after the diagnosis of plasmacytoma? Or is this a second primary based on the right hip biopsy that showed plasma cell myeloma and the physician's documentation of disease progression? Plasmacytomas are usually single lesions. Would this disease process have multiple lesions if they are diagnosed at different times? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph. This case is accessioned as two primaries: Plasmacytoma diagnosed in 2010 and plasma cell myeloma diagnosed in 2011 per Rule M10. The patient has a diagnosis of a solitary plasmacytoma (chronic neoplasm) followed by a diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma (acute neoplasm) diagnosed greater than 21 days later. The physician is calling this a progression to plasma cell myeloma even though the bone marrow has less than 10% plasma cells, take this statement as progression or a clinical diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma. 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. |
2013 |
|
|
20130054 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries are accessioned if a lobectomy has two tumors that are both stated to be adenocarcinoma but the pathologist states they are synchronous primaries? See Discussion. | Left upper lung lobectomy: Adenocarcinoma, poorly-differentiated (grade 3), tumor size 1.2 cm, confined to lung. Second primary lung tumor: adenocarcinoma, well-differentiated (grade 1), tumor size 0.9 cm, confined to lung. Diagnosis COMMENT: The two tumors, although both adenocarcinoma, show markedly different histologies and thus are classified as synchronous primaries. Multiple synchronous primaries are staged separately according to the 7th edition of AJCC.
The AJCC Staging Manual 7th ed states, "Multiple tumors may be considered to be synchronous primaries if they are of different histological cell types. When multiple tumors are of the same cell type, they should only be considered to be synchronous primary tumors if, in the opinion of the pathologist, based on features such as ..., they represent different subtypes of the same histologic cell type..."
In this case, the pathologist insists these are two synchronous primaries, although different subtypes are not given, because the tumors have different grades and look completely different under the microscope. The MP/H rules indicate this is a single primary. How many primaries are accessioned? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession a single primary, adenocarcinoma [8140/3] of the left upper lobe lung [C341]. 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 Lung MP rules because site specific rules exist for this primary.
Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. The patient has two tumors in the same lung with the same histology.
Do not use the AJCC Manual to make multiple primary decisions. Use the MP/H Rules to determine the number of primaries to accession. |
2013 |
An official website of the United States government
