Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20130214 | Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Does Rule PH20 apply if a patient with lymphoma has bilateral axillary and bilateral inguinal lymph node involvement? | Rule PH20 states to code the primary site to the specific lymph node region when multiple lymph node chains within the same region as defined by ICD-O-3 are involved. Note 1 further states that one is to use this rule when there is bilateral involvement of lymph nodes. | Rule PH21 applies to this situation which states to code the primary site to multiple lymph node regions, NOS (C778) when multiple lymph node regions, as defined by ICD-O-3, are involved and it is not possible to identify the lymph node region where the lymphoma originated. Axillary nodes are coded to C773 and inguinal nodes are coded to C774. There are two lymph node regions involved. Code the primary site to C778 [multiple lymph nodes].
If this patient had only bilateral axillary OR only bilateral inguinal nodes are involved, then PH20 would have applied and you would code to the specific lymph node region mentioned. |
2013 |
|
|
20130139 | Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded when the original slides are reviewed at a later date and the revised diagnosis changes the histology? See Discussion. | Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3] diagnosed in 5/2010 and treated with chemotherapy. In 11/2012 a bone marrow biopsy revealed small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) [9823/3].
The 2010 slides were reviewed and showed, "a large cell lymphoid proliferation, many of the cells which appear to be prolymphocytes. There are background smaller lymphocytes that are consistent with CLL/SLL. In retrospect, the lymph node most likely represented a prolymphocytic conversion in SLL."
The medical oncologist is calling this a recurrent lymphoma. Should the original 5/2010 diagnosis be changed to 9823/3 [CLL/SLL]? Is this documented in the Heme Manual? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Change the histology of the original 2010 diagnosis to 9823/3 [chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma] based on the review of the 2010 slides. The 2010 diagnosis was revised based on the review of slides and the histology should be changed accordingly. The closest example of this is located in the SEER Manual, Changing Information on the Abstract, instruction 3, example 4.
Histology code 9670/3 [SLL] is obsolete for cases diagnosed 2010 and later. All diagnoses of CLL/SLL, CLL, and SLL are now coded to histology code 9823/3 [CLL/SLL].
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 |
|
|
20130106 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a 2009 diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma, nodular sclerosis type is treated and subsequently presents in 2010 with the same diagnosis? See Discussion. | 2009 diagnosis of Hodgkin lymphoma, nodular sclerosis type involved the superior mediastinal nodes, AP window nodes, bilateral axillary nodes and pulmonary nodules. The patient received chemotherapy and went into remission.
Patient presents in 2010 with Hodgkin lymphoma, nodular sclerosing type in the superior mediastinum.
Does timing play any part in determining if this reported as one or two primaries? There is no timing rule in the Heme Manual. |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Accession a single primary, Hodgkin lymphoma, nodular sclerosis type [9663/3] diagnosed in 2009 per Rule M2.
Accession a single primary when there is a single histology. Note 2 for Rule M2 indicates timing is not relevant. This is disease progression or recurrence and not 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. |
2013 |
|
|
20130203 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are accessioned for a diagnosis of cerebral cavernous malformation disorder (CCM1) and MRI evidence of dozens of cavernous angiomas/malformations throughout the supra and infratentorium? See Discussion. | 9/9/11 IMP: Presymptomatic cerebral cavernous malformation disorder (CCM1).
9/9/11 Brain MRI: FINDINGS: Total of 14 foci. 2 largest in rt frontal lobe. In rt frontal lobe, total of 4 foci. Of remaining 10 small foci, 4 are in cerebellum, 1 in rightward pons, 1 in lt temporal lobe, 1 in lt occipital lobe, 1 in rt occipital lobe, 1 in posterior rt temporal lobe, & 1 in lt frontal lobe. Lesions in bilateral occipital lobes & lt temporal lobe are associated w/weighted signal suggestive of hemosiderin & are most c/w additional cavernous malformations. IMPRESSION: Just over a dozen scattered foci of gradient susceptibility throughout supra & infratentorium.
9/13/13 Brain MRI. Clinical diagnosis: Cerebral cavernous angiomas. FINDINGS: Approximately a dozen scattered foci. 2 largest in rt frontal lobe. Remaining small foci identified w/in cerebellum, rightward pons, rt occipital lobe, rt temporal lobe, & lt frontal lobe. Many are less conspicuous than in 2011 & a few that were present on prior study are not evident on current exam. This is likely due to differences in technique. IMPRESSION: Redemonstration of numerous scattered foci c/w cavernous malformations. |
This case is not reportable as is. The clinical diagnosis on the 9/13/13 MRI was "cerebral cavernous angiomas," but the final impression on the MRI was a re-demonstration of the numerous scattered foci consistent with cavernous malformations seen on the previous 9/9/11 MRI. There was no reportable statement of cavernous angioma. Cavernous malformation is not a reportable neoplasm; it has no valid ICD-O-3 code.
Vascular tumors of the CNS are reportable when they arise in the dura or parenchyma of the CNS. When they arise in blood vessels or bone, they are not reportable. Do not report vascular tumors when there is not enough information to determine whether they arise in the dura or parenchyma or elsewhere. |
2013 |
|
|
20130215 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis synonymous with an EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disorder in children reportable? See Discussion. |
Pathology report states: Prominent T-cell infiltrate with frequent immunoblast-like cells. COMMENT: Findings consistent with an acute EBV-associated hemophagocytic process. In addition, there is a prominent CD8 + T-cell infiltrate with many large, activated forms. This T-cell process may represent an EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disorder in children. EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disorder in children is listed in the Heme database. However, throughout multiple admissions, the oncologist states the diagnosis as "hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis". Are the two the same condition? The patient is being treated with Etoposide. |
Per Appendix F, do not report this case based on the information provided. The oncologist likely used the pathology report and clinical factors to determine the diagnosis of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, which is not reportable. Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis is caused by an over stimulated immune system (infection, etc.). This clinical syndrome is associated with a variety of underlying conditions. To be reportable, it must state "fulminant hemophagocytic syndrome" (in a child) to be reportable (9724/3). The pathology report for this case is not definitive. It states that the process "may" represent the EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disorder in children. Follow back on this case to confirm reportability if possible. |
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 |
|
|
20140016 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: What is the correct histology code for this situation? See discussion. | Patient has 2 bladder tumors, both invasive -- one is transitional cell carcinoma (8120/3) and the other is papillary TCC (8130/3). They have the same extent of disease, both involve the lamina propria. Is this 8120, because of the Note under rule H11 or is this 8130 because under rule H12, it says 'papillary carcinoma and transitional cell carcinoma'? If so, what is the meaning of the note under rule H11? | Rule H12 applies, code to 8130. The note under H11 is intended to explain the order of the rules; that is, why the rule to code papillary transitional/urothelial cell carcinoma (H12) follows the rule to code transitional/urothelial cell carcinoma (H11). |
2014 |
|
|
20140010 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is this one primary or two? Follicular lymphoma grade 1 (9695/3) on 8/23/12 from an abdominal lymph node. On 1/6/14 an abdominal lymph node biopsy showed diffuse large b cell lymphoma arising from high grade follicle center cell lymphoma. Patient has been on observation. | 1st primary, 8/23/12: Follicular lymphoma, grade 1 2nd primary, 1/6/14: Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma Apply the multiple primary rules twice for this case. The 2012 diagnosis is follicular lymphoma. There are two histologies in 2014: diffuse large b cell lymphoma and follicle center cell lymphoma diagnosed at the same time in the same location. This is one primary per rule M4. Then compare the 2012 diagnosis to the 2014 diagnosis. Per the Hematopoietic Database, follicular lymphoma (all types) transforms to DLBCL. Per Rule M10, the DLBCL would be a second primary. |
2014 | |
|
|
20140048 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Sarcoma: Is 8811/3 the correct code for myxofibrosarcoma (myxoid malignant fibrous histiocytoma) high-grade (grade 3/3)? |
8811/3 is the correct code for myxofibrosarcoma. See Rule J on page 33 in ICD-O-3. Fibromyxosarcoma is equivalent to myxofibrosarcoma. |
2014 | |
|
|
20140004 | Grade--Liver: How should grade be coded for a liver lesion treated with radio frequency ablation (RFA) followed by a transplant showing moderately differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma? See discussion. | The SEER Manual emphasizes the importance of coding grade only prior to neoadjuvant treatment as systemic treatment and radiation can alter a tumor's grade. This patient did not have neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiation, but did undergo a prior surgical procedure (RFA) in an attempt to destroy tumor tissue. The subsequent transplant showed residual moderately differentiated HCC. | For this case, record the grade specified even though it is after RFA. RFA is not systemic or radiation treatment and should not alter the grade. | 2014 |
An official website of the United States government
