| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20130089 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is the histology coded when a pre-treatment core biopsy showed ductal carcinoma, but the mastectomy specimen following neoadjuvant chemotherapy showed lobular carcinoma? See Discussion. | 11/06/2012 Ultrasound-guided biopsy of the left breast and left axilla showed invasive ductal carcinoma. The patient underwent 6 months of chemotherapy. In 05/2013 the patient underwent a mastectomy that showed invasive lobular cancer, pleomorphic type, with 11 axillary lymph nodes negative. | The histology is coded to lobular carcinoma, NOS [8520/3] because the mastectomy (the most representative specimen) showed only lobular carcinoma.
The MP/H Rules state to code the histology from the most representative tumor specimen examined. Although this patient underwent neoadjuvant treatment, there is no indication that the ultrasound-guided biopsy contained more tumor than the mastectomy. The mastectomy is the most representative specimen and should be used to code the histology.
|
2013 |
|
|
20130080 | Primary site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are the primary site and histology coded when a right neck mass and spinal mass both show B-cell lymphoma, favor Burkitt lymphoma? See Discussion. | 2/5/11 Right neck swelling. Biopsy of mass B-cell lymphoma, favor Burkitt lymphoma.
7/5/11 Hemi-laminectomy, L2-L5 spinal mass: Malignant lymphoma, B-cell phenotype, favor Burkitt lymphoma.
Should the primary site be C779? Is the correct histology Burkitt lymphoma [9687/3] or malignant lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell [9680/3]? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site to C779 [lymph nodes] per Rule PH22 and the histology to 9591/3 [B-cell lymphoma, NOS].
Code the primary site to C779 [lymph nodes, NOS] when lymphoma is present in an organ and lymph nodes that are not regional for that organ and the origin cannot be determined even after consulting the physician. The patient has involvement of a lumbar spine mass and cervical lymph nodes. Cervical lymph nodes are not regional to the lumbar area of the spine.
Do not use ambiguous terminology to code histology for hematopoietic neoplasms. "Favor" is ambiguous terminology. Therefore, the histology must be coded to B-cell lymphoma and not to diagnosis which is "favored" (Burkitt lymphoma). Remember that ambiguous terminology is only used to determine case reportability, not to code histology for hematopoietic 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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20130129 | Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology coded for a diagnosis of composite lymphoma (follicular lymphoma and small lymphocytic lymphoma, BCL-2 positive)? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to 9823/3 [chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL)] per Rule PH15. Code the histology to the non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) with the numerically highest ICD-O-3 code when two or more NHLs are present in the same present in the same lymph node(s) or lymph node region(s), tissue(s), organ(s), or bone marrow. Both follicular lymphoma [9690/3] and SLL [9823/3] are types of NHL. Therefore, the histology is coded to 9823/3.
This composite histology represents a single primary per Rule M4. The rule states to abstract a single primary when two or more types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma are simultaneously present in the same anatomic location(s), such as the same lymph node or lymph node region(s), the same organ(s), and/or the same tissue(s).
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 |
|
|
20130008 | Primary site--Kidney, renal pelvis: Should primary site be coded C809 [unknown] or C649 [kidney] when a patient is diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma in a transplanted kidney? | Code the primary site to C649 [kidney]. Per the SEER Manual, code the site where the neoplasm originated. There are no separate instructions for coding primary site for transplanted organs. This patient's renal cell carcinoma originated in the kidney [C649]. | 2013 | |
|
|
20130095 | Grade--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is grade coded for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, NOS? See Discussion. | The Heme DB indicates histology code 9811/3 [B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma] is the current histology code to use for the now obsolete term of acute lymphoblastic leukemia [9835/3]. The Heme DB entry for histology code 9835/3 states to "Code grade specified by pathologist. If no grade specified, code 9." The Heme DB entry for the current histology code, 9811/3, states to code the grade to 6 [B-cell]. Should grade be coded to 6 [B-cell] for all cases coded to histology code 9811/3? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the grade to 6 [B-cell] for all cases of 9811/3 [B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma] per Rule G3 in the Heme Manual.
Acute lymphoblastic leukemia, NOS [9835/3] is an obsolete code and cannot be used for cases diagnosed 2010 and later. The Heme DB indicates the correct histology code is 9811/3 and grade 6 [B-cell] for cases diagnosed 2010 and later.
For cases of acute lymphoblastic lymphoma, NOS [9835/3] diagnosed prior to 2010, use the pathology report information to code the grade. Code the grade as 9 [unknown] if the pathology report does not specify the grade.
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 |
|
|
20130185 | Reportability/Behavior: Is HGSIL (high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion) of the vulva or vagina reportable and is it a synonym for histology code 8077/2 [squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III]? |
For cases diagnosed 2018 and later HGSIL of the vulva or vagina is reportable. HGSIL is a synonym for squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III. |
2013 | |
|
|
20130070 | Reportability--Is "intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm with low grade dysplasia" (also called IPMN adenoma) reportable? See Discussion. |
According to the ICD-O-3, the histology for IPMN adenoma is 8453/0 is non-reportable. However, per SINQ 20021099, this is reportable. |
Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the pancreas with low grade dysplasia, also referred to as IPMN adenoma, is not reportable. IPMN of the pancreas is reportable when stated as "IPMN with high-grade dysplasia," or "IPMN with an associated invasive carcinoma," or "IPMN with an associated in situ carcinoma." The case in SINQ 20021099 is stated to have "multifocal high grade dysplasia (so-called borderline tumor and carcinoma in-situ)" and is reportable because there is an explicit statement of carcinoma in situ, not because of the reference to the presence of high grade dysplasia. It is coded 8453/2 [Intraductal papillary-mucinous carcinoma, non-invasive]. |
2013 |
|
|
20130148 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are "spinal" schwannomas reportable if stated to be extradural, vertebral nerve sheath, or of specific vertebrae? See Discussion. | Are any of the following cases reportable?
Example 1: Clinical Diagnosis: Extradural spinal cord tumor compatible with schwannoma. What assumptions should be made about reportability if the tumor is described as being extradural? The extradural spinal cord includes epidural fat surrounding the thecal sac and exiting nerve roots. Does this mean there are not nerve roots in the extradural spinal cord?
Example 2: Final Pathologic Diagnosis: Designated "C3-4 nerve sheath tumor" excision: Morphologic and immunohistochemical findings consistent with cellular schwannoma. When stated to be a "nerve sheath tumor" does that mean peripheral nerve (C47_) involvement or nerve root (C72_) involvement?
Example 3: Final Pathologic Diagnosis: T-8 vertebral tumor resection: Schwannoma with degenerative changes (calcification, cyst formation) - ganglion and nerve are identified. There is no mention clinically or pathologically whether this tumor is "intradural" or "of the nerve root." In the absence of information about whether the location of the tumor is intradural or involving the nerve root, is it assumed that it does involve this part of the spinal cord when a specific vertebrae is removed? |
Extradural schwannomas are not reportable. Neither vertebral nerve sheath nor a location of/on a specific vertebrae confirm the origin as being either extradural or intradural. Do not report a schwannoma if it cannot be determined to be "intradural" or "of the nerve root." | 2013 |
Home
