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: 02/10/2026 22:44 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20130098 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Why did the hematopoietic histology rule change regarding the coding of small lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukemia (SLL/CLL) from the lymphoma code (9670/3) to leukemia (9823/3) when both tissue and bone marrow are involved? See Discussion. The answer in SINQ 20110035 that instructs us to code the primary site to bone marrow [C421] is the opposite of what has been coded for years. After all the years of coding SLL/CLL as a lymphoma when both tissue and bone marrow/blood are involved, why has the change to coding this to the leukemia code (9823/3) been made?

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

There has been a change in coding practice based on a change in clinical classification of leukemia/lymphomas. In the past, we did, indeed, default to lymphoma when both tissue and bone marrow were involved. The problem was that when only bone marrow was involved, the case was coded to leukemia with a primary site of bone marrow. When lymphoma symptoms developed later, there was a lot of inconsistency in how registries handled these cases. Some coded a new primary "lymphoma;" while others ignored the lymphoma calling it progression.

The clinical world, including the hematopoietic experts in the World Health Organization and the Inter-Lymph Consortium, agreed that for certain neoplasms (CLL/SLL being one of them) it was not useful or practical to code the leukemia and lymphoma separately OR to capture only one of the neoplasms (because these neoplasms almost always progress to lymphoma); so new codes for the leukemia/lymphoma were developed. According to the experts, 9823/3 most accurately portrays the neoplastic process for the neoplasms assigned to a lymphoma/leukemia code.

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
20130189

Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are the terms 'mass' and 'lesion' reportable terms for accessioning brain and CNS primaries? See Discussion.

With respect to reportability, the SEER Manual mentions 'tumor' and 'neoplasm,' but not 'mass' or 'lesion.' The SEER MP/H Manual states tumor, mass, lesion and neoplasm are equivalent terms for determining multiple primaries, but does this apply to reportability? If not, what is the distinction?

'Mass' and 'lesion' are not reportable terms for benign/borderline brain and CNS tumors.

Reportable terms for benign/borderline brain and CNS primaries are 'tumor' and 'neoplasm.' These terms appear in the ICD-O-3. 'Lesion' and 'mass' do not appear in the ICD-O-3. Do not use the MP/H Manual to determine reportability; page 2 of the SEER Manual is the correct source for reportability instructions.

 2013
20130047 Date of diagnosis--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the diagnosis date for a patient with a mild thrombocytosis diagnosed in 2008, that was subsequently treated with Anagrelide in 11/2010 following an increase in platelet count, and later in 3/2011 was found to have positive JAK2 study physician refers to as essential thrombocythemia? See Discussion. In 2008, patient diagnosed with mild thrombocytosis. The patient opted to be followed clinically with observation. In November 2010, a CBC showed an increased platelet count to 600,000. Anagrelide was started. The patient would never agree to a bone marrow biopsy. However, in 3/2011 a JAK2 study was performed and read as positive. Following the positive Jak2 study, physician stated the diagnosis was essential thrombocytosis and started the patient on a different drug.

Code the diagnosis date to 3/2011. It wasn't until 3/2011 that the physician documented a reportable diagnosis of essential thrombocytosis [9962/3].

Mild thrombocytosis is not reportable. Therefore, the case was not reportable in 2008. Although the patient was treated in 2010, there was no documentation of a reportable diagnosis.

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
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
20130207 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a new primary reported for the diagnosis of plasmacytoma associated with a pathological fracture if it follows a diagnosis five years ago of multiple myeloma? See Discussion.

Multiple myeloma was diagnosed more than 5 years prior to admission. The patient underwent multimodality treatment.

Currently, the patient suffered a fracture. The pathology report diagnosis was "plasmacytoma." The discharge summary states, "multiple myeloma advanced with multiple lytic lesions".

Does this scenario represent a single primary dating back to the original diagnosis? Or does the diagnosis of plasmacytoma on the recent biopsy indicate a new primary because it was originally diagnosed as acute and reverts to a chronic neoplasm after treatment more than 21 days later?

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

Per the Abstractor Notes section, this case represents a single primary. Histology is coded to 9732/2 [multiple myeloma], which is now advanced.

Review the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB for multiple myeloma. It states that in multiple myeloma there is generalize bone marrow involvement. It further states that lytic bone lesions and bone tumor masses of plasma cells (plasmacytomas) are signs of advanced disease. According to the Discharge Summary, this patient had multiple lytic lesions and plasmacytoma which indicates advanced disease.

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
20130187 Reportability: Is a clinically diagnosed Stage III malignant thymoma reportable when the post-neoadjuvant resection showed spindle cell thymoma? See Discussion. A thymoma is described by the medical oncologist at the time of the initial diagnosis as a malignant thymoma, Stage III. The patient had neoadjuvant CAP chemotherapy followed by a resection. Following the resection, the pathologist stated the diagnosis was spindle cell thymoma. A malignant thymoma is reportable. Based on the information provided, a reportable diagnosis (malignant thymoma) was made by a physician and the patient was treated for this diagnosis. Because there is no mention of the initial diagnosis being amended based on the resection specimen's pathology report, assume the initial diagnosis is still valid. 2013
20130079

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is plasma cell dyscrasia reportable and synonymous with multiple myeloma? See Discussion.

Bone marrow biopsy and aspirate: Plasma cell dyscrasia with IgG kappa expression with FISH (+) for the following abnormalities: 3 copies of 1q21 (25/30 plasma cells) and an extra CCND1 signal (25/34 plasma cells) which is indicative of the presence of other chromosome 11 abnormalities possibly trisomy 11, a change known to occur in plasma cell neoplasms. Flow cytometry: A monoclonal plasma cell population is present, co-expressing cIgG, cKappa, CD56, & CD117 (up to 14% of analyzed cells).

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

Plasma cell dyscrasia and multiple myeloma are not synonymous terms. Plasma cell dyscrasia is not listed in the Alternate Names section of the Heme DB for plasma cell myeloma (multiple myeloma). Plasma cell dyscrasia is listed in the Alternate Names section of the Heme DB for MGUS [9765/1], which is not a reportable disease.

Plasma cell dyscrasia (PCD) is not reportable. PCD is a diverse group of neoplastic diseases that produces a serum M component (monoclonal immunoglobulin).

Usually these patients have a plasma cell morphology such as multiple myeloma or heavy chain disease. However, the registrar cannot diagnose multiple myeloma or heavy chain disease (or any other plasma cell neoplasm). There must be a physician statement and/or a positive biopsy to confirm a reportable diagnosis.

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
20130050 Multiple Primaries/Primary site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned and what is the primary site and histology for each if a 6/12/12 left shoulder mass specimen suspicious for large B-cell lymphoma is followed on 7/10/12 with three skin nodules excised from the back with a diagnosis of "composite lymphoma? See Discussion.

6/12/12 Excisional biopsy left shoulder soft tissue mass: Suspicious for large B-cell lymphoma.

7/10/12 Excisional biopsy three skin nodules of back: "Composite lymphoma" - primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma (CD3 pos, CD4 pos, CD30 pos, ALK neg with partial loss of CD5) and CONCURRENT cutaneous follicular center lymphoma (CD20 pos, PAX5 pos, BCL-6 pos, partially CD10 pos) and flow cytometry revealed results compatible with involvement by a lymphoproliferative disorder of T-cell lineage.

Per imaging performed, there was no involvement of lymph nodes or other organs.

Is the primary site C449 Skin, NOS and histology 9718/3 [Lymphoma, primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell] be correct?

Code primary site to C445 [skin, back] and histology to 9718/3 [cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma] .

Per Rule M6, abstract a single primary when two or more types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma are simultaneously present in the same anatomic location. For this case, there is cutaneous follicular (follicle) center lymphoma (9597/3) and cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma (9718/3).

Per Rule PH22, code the primary site to the site or origin (skin, back) and the histology to the NHL with the numerically highest ICD-O-3 code. In this case, that would be 9718/3.

2013
20130176

Reportability--Ovary: Is an adult granulosa cell tumor of the right adnexa reportable if the left adnexa, diaphragm and paratubal tissue are reported to be consistent with metastasis? See discussion.

Per the pathology report: Right adnexa: adult granulosa cell tumor. Left adnexa: Foci of metastatic granulosa cell tumor in paratubal tissue. Diaphragm smears: consistent with metastatic granulosa cell tumor. Comment: The morphology and immunoprofile of the cellular aggregates in the paratubal soft tissue are consistent with metastatic granulosa cell tumor.

Based on the information provided, this case of adult granulosa cell tumor is malignant and reportable. According to our expert pathologist consultant, "though granulosa cell tumor NOS/ adult NOS is 8620/1, the presence of peritoneal implants or metastases, and/or lymph node metastases indicates the tumor is malignant, and it should be coded /3."

Note that the presence of implants or metastases does not indicate malignancy in the case of low malignant potential ovarian epithelial tumors. Our path expert explains "in contrast, by convention the behavior of borderline/LMP ovarian epithelial tumors is determined by the ovarian primary, and is /1, even though there may be peritoneal implants/metastases, or metastatic disease in lymph nodes. The treatment may vary in these circumstances, but to my knowledge the decision as to the tumor designation remains based on the primary tumor."

2013