Back to Search Results

Report Produced: 10/17/2021 19:08 PM

Report Question ID (Descending) Question Discussion Answer

Multiple primaries/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Lymphoma: Is a 2021 right tongue base biopsy showing diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (9680/3) a new primary following a prior history of hairy cell leukemia-variant (HCL-v) (9591/3) in 2011? See discussion.

Patient was diagnosed with low-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2011, later classified as hairy cell leukemia-variant.

Right cervical node biopsy in 2020 proved HCL-v and a subsequent 2021 right tongue base biopsy showed DLBCL. The tongue base biopsy path includes the comment, patient has history of HCL-v, but the morphology and flow cytology features are different from the patients previous right cervical node biopsy. This DLBCL likely represents a second de novo lymphoma, but cannot exclude an unusual transformation of the prior HCL-v.

Per Heme Rule M7, abstract a single primary when a more specific histology is diagnosed after an NOS if the Heme DB confirms the same primary. The histology code for HCL-v, 9591/3 is a non-specific code, but it seems like a specific histology. The Heme Calculator does say 9591 and 9680 are the same primary, but we are unsure if that is correct for this case of HCL-v followed by DLBCL.

Abstract two primaries. This is a transformation from a chronic disease (the Hairy Cell Variant) to an acute disease (DLBCL). Although this rare situation is not clearly covered in the Hematopoietic rules, the fact that this was originally a Hairy Cell Leukemia variant means that the DLBCL is a new primary.


Update to current manual/First course treatment--Neoadjuvant treatment: How are the 2021 neoadjuvant therapy fieldscoded when neoadjuvant therapy and surgery were part of first course plans but treatment was never completed. See Discussion.

Example: Breast case where first course treatment plan is neoadjuvant therapy and surgery after. The patient was hospitalized during neoadjuvant therapy, elected hospice, and later died, so the neoadjuvant therapy was never completed, surgery not done. How arethe 2021 neoadjuvant therapy fields coded in this situation as neoadjuvant therapy and surgery were part of first course plans. I coded neoadjuvant therapy to 2 - started but not completed, but there are no codes to properly explain the clinical response and therapy treatment effect as the patient did not complete neoadjuvant therapy. Should I use code 9 for clinical response and treatment effect or should this be left blank for this particular case?

Assign code 8 for Neoadjuvant Therapy--Clinical Response in this case. We will update the SEER manual to allow code 2, in addition to code 1, in Neoadjuvant therapy when Clinical Response is coded 8. We will also add instructions covering a case such as this one.

Assign code 7 for Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect and use text fields to record the details. We will add instructions to the manual for this scenario.


Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Thyroid: Is category Thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TI-RADS) 4 (4a/4b) or TI-RADS 5 on imaging diagnostic of thyroid cancer, and if so, can we use the date of the impression on the scan that states either of these categories as the diagnosis date?

TI-RADS 5 is reportable for thyroid cancer unless disproven by other documentation and the date of the TI-RADS 5 scan may be used as the date of diagnosis if this is the earliest mention of the malignancy. TI-RADS 5 is "probably malignant nodules (>80% malignancy)."

TI-RADS 4 (including 4a and 4b) is not reportable for thyroid cancer. TI-RADS 4 is "suspicious nodules (5-80% malignancy)." TI-RADS 4b is "suspicious (10-80% malignancy)."


Update to current manual/Lymphovascular invasion: Are lymphvascular invasion and lymphvascular space invasion on a pathology report the same thing or do they describe different things?

We confirmed with our expert pathologist consultant that lymphovascular invasion and lymphovascular space invasion are synonymous.


Update to current manual/Lymphovacular invasion--Thyroid: Are psammoma bodies onlyrecorded as vascular invasion in papillary thyroid cancer cases? See Discussion.

For example, total thyroidectomy specimen shows right lobe papillary thyroid carcinoma, 4.2 cm, unencapsulated, with numerous psammoma bodies in non-tumoral thyroid parenchyma, without angioinvasion; left lobe with papillary thyroid carcinoma, 0.6 cm, encapsulated, with capsular invasion, with intralymphatic psammoma bodies in non-tumoral thyroid parenchyma, without angioinvasion. The synoptic summary documents vascular invasion present (psammoma bodies only).

If you are collectinglymphovascular invasion (LVI)for thyroid cases, record "vascular invasion present (psammoma bodies only)" as vascular invasion (code 1, Lymphovascular Invasion Present/Identified) in the LVI data item. Use a text field to specify that this is vascular invasion by psammoma bodies.


Reportability/Histology--Endometrium: Isendometrial hyperplasia with atypiaequivalent toatypical hyperplasia of the endometrium(8380/2) and thus reportable?

Endometrial hyperplasia with atypia is equivalent toatypical hyperplasia of the endometrium(8380/2) and thus reportable for cases diagnosed 2021 and later. Our expert pathologist consultant confirmed this for us.


Reportability--Liver: Is a diagnosis of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS)-Treatment Response (LR-TR) viable nodule seen on imaging and treated with Y-90 radiotherapy reportable? See Discussion.

Patient was initially diagnosed in 2017 with LR-5 lesions in segments 3 and 7 of liver and treated with radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Routine scans in 2019 show no evidence of residual or recurrent disease.

Surveillance imaging in 2020 identifies LR-TR viable segment 3 treatment zone with slowly growing arterially-enhancing nodule as well as increasing arterial enhancement in the neighboring parenchyma. No new LR-4 or LR-5 observations. Patient is not a surgical candidate but is treated with Y-90 radiotherapy.

Per Rule M10, tumors diagnosed more than 1 year apart are multiple primaries. However, there is no clear clinical statement of malignancy in this case.

Do not report LR-TR viable as a new primary. LR-TR viable is a component of the Li-RADS Treatment Response algorithm designed to assess response for path-proven or presumed(e.g., LR-4, LR-5, LR-M) malignancy after locoregional treatment for hepatocellular cancer. LR-TR viable indicates it met the criteria as a viable tumor.


Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are lipomas of the spinal column reportable as a benign tumor of the central nervous system (CNS)? This is seen occassionally at ourpediatric facility.

Spinal cord tumors (including lipomas) are reportable when they arise in the spinal dura or nerve root. The tumor must be of the spinal cord itself or within the spinal cord dura. Spinal cord tumors are reportable when they arise in the intradural space. A reportable intradural tumor can be either intramedullary or extramedullary. Extramedullary intradural spinal tumors are reportable.A spinal tumor originating in the extradural space is not reportable. If it is outside the dura, it is not reportable because it would be outside the CNS.They are not reportable when they arise in the peripheral nerves.


Primary site--Breast: Patient was diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma of the left breast. Site of mass is 2:00 to 3:00. What is the correct site code, C504 upper outer quadrant (UOQ) or C50.8 (overlapping)?

Assign C504, UOQ, for a left breast primary mass at 2:00 to 3:00. See the illustration in the SEER Coding Guidelines for breast,


Multiple primaries--Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a patient with peripheral blood initially showing chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), lymph node biopsy showing granulocytic sarcoma (9930/3), and bone marrow biopsy showing acute myeloid leukemia (AML) one or two primaries? See Discussion.

1. 12/11/2020 Peripheral blood revealing what was thought to be chronic myelogenous leukemia BCR/ABL1 positive (9875/3). Patient was started on Hydrea while waiting for further tests on 12/12/2020.

2. 12/14/2020 Lymph node biopsy showed granulocytic sarcoma (9930/3), but flow cytometry states it is similar to that seen in the patients peripheral blood and is consistent with nodal involvement by myeloblasts.

3. 12/15/2020 Bone marrow biopsy reads acute myeloid leukemia (9861/3), likely arising from BCR/ABL1 positive chronic myeloid leukemia. There is a note on this pathology from medical oncologist that says: This will dramatically change the course of his treatment, likely with a TKI.

4. 12/17/2020 Sprycel started. Patient was weaned off Hydrea.

According to Rule M3, abstract a single primary when a sarcoma is diagnosed simultaneously or after a leukemia of the same lineage. It lists 9930/3 when simultaneously (or after) with 9861/3. Technically, it was two days before, but I feel like I should and could count that as simultaneously because of Note 1 that says: These sarcomas are solid manifestations of the associated leukemia. For example, when acute myeloid leukemia and myeloid sarcoma are diagnosed simultaneously, the myeloid sarcoma is the result of myeloid cells migrating from the bone marrow or blood into tissue. It is part of the disease process for the acute leukemia. Also, the providers never mention granulocytic sarcoma

Based on that, I think that #2 & #3 above are the same primary, which would be acute myeloid leukemia (9861/3).

Per the hematopoietic database, 9875/3 transforms to 9861/3. Therefore, Rule M8 is confusing with the only one" biopsy. Does this rule apply because the 9875/3 was from peripheral blood only? But peripheral blood is coded in Diagnostic Confirmation as histology.

Rule M9 reads: The two diagnoses are likely the result of an ongoing diagnostic work-up. The later diagnosis is usually based on all of the test results and correlated with any clinical information. Because that is truly what I think is happening here though that rule states there is no available documentation. If you do not have any documentation, how would you know you are dealing with a chronic and an acute diagnosis?

M10 does not apply.

According to Rule M11, abstract as multiple primaries when both a chronic and an acute neoplasm are diagnosed simultaneously or within 21 days and there is documentation of two biopsies. The chronic myelogenous leukemia only had peripheral blood and not a bone marrow, lymph node or tissue, but that is counted as positive histology in diagnostic confirmation, but I dont know if that is kept as a separate field/thought. I would not code a peripheral blood smear as with a surgical code or a surgical diagnostic and staging procedure code, so maybe that is what I should be thinking about and therefore would probably say Rule M8 and one primary.

This is one primary based on Rule M3. Abstract as a single primary site for the granulocytic sarcoma and AML since they are both evaluating the blood/bone marrow, which are counted as one site. To count them twice would result in over counting primaries.

For Rule M9: This would not apply to your situation since you do have information on both the CML and the AML. We had to write in this rule for cases where you do not always have the information available.

In terms of the peripheral blood versus actually biopsy: In this case, do not count the peripheral blood as a separate site. Rule M8 does fit your case, coding this as the AML and having this as one primary.