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: 02/12/2026 05:15 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20130010 MP/H Rules/Histology--Skin: How is the histology coded for "infiltrative carcinoma with ductal alterations compatible with squamoid eccrine ductal carcinoma" of the skin?

Code the histology to 8413/3 [eccrine adenocarcinoma]. This is the most specific code available for this diagnosis.

According to our expert pathologist advisor, "The adnexal glands in the skin, sweat (eccrine) glands and apocrine glands, all have ducts which connect the business portion of each gland to the skin surface. Some of the adnexal tumors have features of differentiation which appear to be duct-like, hence the designation 'ductal.'"

In addition, "The 'squamoid' simply indicates some degree of squamous differentiation, but doesn't alter the usefulness of [code 8413/3] because we have no way of coding anything more specific in this case anyway."

2013
20130119 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Would this case be reportable? Patient with a myelodysplastic syndrome secondary to a copper deficiency. Myelodysplastic syndrome is a reportable disease. Document in the text that the MDS was due to a copper deficiency. 2013
20130009 Grade--Pancreas: Can the grade be coded when a biopsy is taken from the part of a primary tumor that has contiguously extended into an adjacent organ or structure? See Discussion. The grade rule states to code grade from tissue removed from the primary tumor only, never from a metastatic site or a site of recurrence. There is no mention of whether the grade can be coded if only the contiguous site of involvement is biopsied when a single tumor directly extends to an adjacent tissue or organ. For example, is grade coded to 2 when a pancreatic tumor extends into the duodenum, and the duodenal biopsy confirms moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma consistent with a pancreatic primary? Or does the primary organ/site have to be biopsied in order to be able to code grade?

For one tumor involving a contiguous site, when there is no tissue specimen available from the primary site, you may code the grade based on the tissue from the tumor in the contiguous site.

This instruction is included in the upcoming grade instruction document.

 2013
20130012

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: If topography codes C681-C689 are not included in Urinary Multiple Primary Rule M8, would a subsequent renal pelvis papillary transitional cell carcinoma be a new primary? See Discussion.

The patient had a papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder and ureter diagnosed in 2010. The primary site was coded to C689 [urinary system, NOS]. The patient was diagnosed with a transitional cell carcinoma of the renal pelvis [C659] in 2012. In applying the MP/H rules to the 2012 diagnosis, rule M8 would be ignored because the primary site of the 2010 primary was coded to C689. The result is that M9 or M10 would be applied which indicates a new primary for the 2012 diagnosis. Should the 2012 renal pelvis carcinoma be a new primary?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession a single primary, papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder and ureter [C689, urinary system, NOS] diagnosed in 2010. 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. This patient has urothelial tumors in two or more of the listed sites (bladder, ureter and renal pelvis) diagnosed within 3 years.

When C689 is assigned because tumors of the bladder and tumors of the ureter were determined to be a single primary and the site of origin is not known (as in this example), rule M8 is applied when a subsequent tumor is diagnosed in one of the listed sites. However, if site C689 [urinary system, NOS] was assigned for other unknown urinary primary site situations, rule M8 would not be used.

Rule M8 was written specifically for urothelial tumors in the renal pelvis, ureter, bladder and urethra. Paraurethral gland [C681] and overlapping lesions of urinary organs [C688] do not belong in rule M8.

We will add this issue to the list of possible revisions for the next edition of the MP/H Rules.

 2013
20130042 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is follicular lymphoma in situ reportable? See Discussion.

Parotid mass and intraparotid lymph node biopsy: Follicular lymphoma in situ (see note).

Note: The morphologic findings in conjunction with the results of immunohistochemical stains demonstrate focal follicular lymphoma in situ in a background of reactive follicular hyperplasia. Cytogenetic studies on the parotid mass demonstrated a normal karyotype. FISH analysis for BCL2 and BCL6 gene rearrangements has been requested and will be reported separately.

Per the Note under Case Reportability Instructions Rule 3 in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Manual, do not report in situ [/2] lymphomas. 2013
20130078

Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a physician diagnosis of "appears to be a myeloproliferative disorder" reportable if the patient has no treatment and the physician elects to follow the patient with CBC's?.

Yes. This is a reportable diagnosis and should be accessioned with the histology coded to 9975/3 [myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable].

The word is a reportable ambiguous term per the Hematopoietic Coding Manual (Case Reportability Instructions, Rule 4).

Myeloproliferative disorder is synonymous with myeloproliferative disease. Myeloproliferative disease is listed as an alternate name for myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable.

 2013
20130183

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a peripheral blood finding consistent with involvement by monoclonal, lambda-restricted mature B cell population with co-expression of CD5 and CD23 reportable if, immunophenotypically, the case is consistent with a chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma? See Discussion.

Peripheral blood: Final diagnosis: Leukocytosis absolute lymphocytosis monoclonal, lambda restricted B-cell population w/co-expression of CD5 and CD23 absolute increase in CD4=helper T cells. See comment.

Comment: Peripheral blood findings are consistent with involvement by monoclonal, lambda-restricted mature B cell population with co-expression of CD5 and CD23, which is immunophenotypically consistent with a chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma immunophenotype. However, the absolute monoclonal population is only 3.02k/ul.

According to WHO criteria, in the absence of extramedullary tissue involvement, the monoclonal lymphocyte population must be greater than or equal to 5.0 k/ul. Therefore, in the absence of clinical evidence of extramedullary tissue involvement, the diagnosis is most consistent with a monoclonal B cell lymphocytosis. Review of initial analysis reveals well-defined groups of cells within lymphocyte, monocyte and granulocyte gates as defined by CD45 and sid-scatter characteristics (%'s are listed). Overall, peripheral blood findings are consistent with involvement by monoclonal, lambada-restricted B cell population with a chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma immunophenotype.

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

This case is reportable. Code histology to 9823/3 [CLL/SLL].

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 on peripheral blood that is "consistent with" involvement by chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) immunophenotype.

The ambiguous terminology "consistent with" in the flow cytometry report is acceptable to determine reportability. Given that it is the only reportable histology mentioned in the scenario, it is also used to code histology. The instruction "Do not code histology based on ambiguous terminology" is intended to be used when there is a reportable NOS histology and reportable more specific histology stated in the diagnosis. Ambiguous terminology cannot be used to report the more specific diagnosis in cases of Heme & Lymphoid neoplasms.

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
20130218 2013
20130115 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology coded when the biopsy final diagnosis is "low grade B-cell lymphoma of unclear subtype (splenic marginal zone lymphoma?)" and the hematologist clinically diagnoses this as splenic marginal zone lymphoma? See Discussion.

This patient has massive splenomegaly. The biopsy final diagnosis was "low grade B lymphoma of unclear subtype (splenic marginal zone lymphoma?)." The pathologist's comment states, "Because of the clinical context (lymphocytosis and splenomegaly) a splenic marginal zone lymphoma is a possibility." There are no other histologic diagnoses. All the flow cytometry reports are as unclear as the biopsy.

The hematologist, after seeing the pathology report, states, "The bone marrow biopsy shows a significant infiltration by mature lymphocytes; their markers strongly suggest a marginal zone lymphoma, probably of splenic origin The final diagnosis is a splenic marginal zone lymphoma."

Should the clinical diagnosis of splenic marginal zone lymphoma [9689/3] be coded when a clinical diagnosis is not listed as a definitive diagnostic method for this neoplasm? Or should the histology be coded as low grade B-cell lymphoma [9591/3]? The clinicians will expect the case to be coded as a splenic marginal zone lymphoma when there's no doubt about the diagnosis.

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

Code the histology to 9689/3 [splenic marginal zone lymphoma] per Rule PH29 and Case Reportability Instruction #6 in the Heme Manual. Case Reportability Instruction #6 indicates, "Report the case when there is a (physician's statement) of reportable hematopoietic or lymphoid neoplasm."

The pathology gave an NOS diagnosis, low grade B-cell lymphoma [9591/3]. The physician clinically stated this was a splenic marginal zone lymphoma [9689/3]. Rule PH 29 states to code the specific histology when the diagnosis is one non-specific histology AND one specific histology AND the Heme DB MP Calculator indicates they are the same primary. Per the Multiple Primaries Calculator, these two histologies indicate 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.

2013
20130121 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is "early essential thrombocythemia" reportable? See Discussion. The bone marrow biopsy diagnosis was, "Combined bone marrow morphologic, flow cytometric, immunohistochemical, molecular and cytogenetic findings are most consistent with early or evolving essential thrombocythemia with low level JAK2 V617F mutation documented on molecular testing." The physician is calling this a benign process. Is this reportable as essential thrombocythemia? Are the terms early or evolving ignored? Does the presence of a JAK2 mutation make this reportable? Without JAK2 testing is this case reportable?

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

Yes, this is a reportable case. The histology is coded to 9962/3 [essential thrombocythemia]. The positive JAK2 mutation testing and bone marrow biopsy results taken together support the diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia in this case.

In the Abstractor Notes section of the Heme DB, it indicates that only 50-60 percent of patients with essential thrombocythemia will have a positive JAK2 mutation. A diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia can still be made in the absence of a JAK2 mutation. For example, if the bone marrow biopsy final diagnosis or a physician's clinical diagnosis is essential thrombocythemia, despite a negative JAK2 mutation test, the neoplasm is still reportable.

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