Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20100081 | Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should a single primary be accessioned with the histology coded 9732/3 [multiple myeloma] when a patient is diagnosed initially with a plasmacytoma on an excision and a single bone marrow biopsy showed only 4% plasma cells, then the subsequent workup led to a clinical diagnosis of multiple myeloma? See Discussion. | This patient had a plasmacytoma removed from the sphenoid sinus and was started on Dexamethasone. The patient had a bone marrow biopsy with 4% plasma cells. A statement in the hematology notes read, "it can increase the rate of false negative results with a bone marrow biopsy." The bone marrow biopsy was done 15 days after the surgery for the plasmacytoma.
Workup yielded the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Per a statement in hematology notes, "I found her having 4% blasts, atypical plasma cells in the bone marrow biopsy and also lytic lesions involving the T7 and lucencies involving L4 and L5 vertebral bodies and also the upper sacrum. The PET-CT scan did not show significant metabolic activities in those lesions. The patient had a small amount of Bence-Jones in the urine and also an abnormal kappa to lambda ratio in the serum. The ratio was 12 to 1. The beta 2 microglobulin was 1.4. The albumin in the serum was 3.4. Based on that, the patient has been diagnosed with Durie-Salmon stage III in ISS stage II multiple myeloma."
The abstractor notes for multiple myeloma state that the diagnosis is made when the proportion of plasma cells in the bone marrow is 10% or greater. Should a diagnosis of MM be accessioned and coded when the bone marrow is less than 10% plasma cells, but a clinical diagnosis of MM is made? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Accept the physician's diagnosis of multiple myeloma [9732/3]. Code the multiple myeloma as a single primary using rule M8 if there was only ONE positive biopsy. Code as multiple primaries (both the solitary plasmacytoma and multiple myeloma) using Rule M11 if there are TWO positive biopsies, one confirming the chronic neoplasm and the other confirming the acute neoplasm.
Per the Heme DB Abstractor Notes: The registrar DOES NOT CODE plasma cell myeloma based on the percentage of plasma cells. There must be a diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma. In addition, a clinical diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma may be made based on amyloidosis with associated renal impairment, anemia and/or hypercalcemia supported by radiologic evidence of multiple lytic bone lesions. he biopsy confirmed plasma cell malignancy (plasmacytoma) and the clinical workup confirmed myeloma.
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. |
2010 |
|
|
20120002 | Histology/Diagnostic confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are histology and diagnostic confirmation coded when a patient has a clinical diagnosis of lymphoma but a pathologic diagnosis of malignant neoplasm, NOS? See Discussion. |
This patient had CT scans showing extensive bilateral retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy suspicious for lymphoma and left axillary lymphadenopathy. Thin core biopsies were done of the left axillary lymph nodes and immunohistology pathology was read as malignant neoplasm with extensive necrosis. Flow cytometry analysis of the sample shows no definitive or sufficient CD45+ events for informative analysis. Karyotype analysis could not be performed on this specimen due to inadequate sample. FISH analysis using IGH break apart probe showed no evidence of clonal rearrangement in limited number of cells available for analysis. The physician's diagnosis is probable lymphoma, no further workup felt necessary because patient would not tolerate chemotherapy anyway and hospice was felt most appropriate care for patient.
The definitive diagnostic method for lymphoma, NOS is histologic confirmation, but the only histologic confirmation was of "malignant neoplasm with extensive necrosis." Should the histology and diagnostic confirmation be coded as lymphoma, NOS [9590/3] and imaging without microscopic confirmation [7] or malignancy, NOS [8000/3] and positive histology [1]? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to 9590/3 [malignant lymphoma, NOS] and the diagnostic confirmation to 7 [radiology and other imaging techniques without microscopic confirmation]. Per the Diagnostic Confirmation Coding Instructions for Heme and Lymphatic Neoplasms, use code 1 when ONLY the biopsy was used to diagnose the specific histology. The biopsy only confirmed a malignancy; the scan confirmed the specific diagnosis of lymphoma.
Note that a clinical diagnosis can be a definitive diagnostic method for malignant lymphoma, NOS. In this case, the biopsy was inadequate and a more specific diagnosis could not be made by histology. Because no further work-up was pursued, this NOS diagnosis of malignant lymphoma was a clinical diagnosis only.
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. |
2012 |
|
|
20230065 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Prostate: Is histology coded as 8045 (Combined small cell carcinoma) for a 2023 diagnosis of two-component carcinoma comprised of both acinar adenocarcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the prostate? See Discussion. |
This patient does not have a previous diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma nor a previous history of androgen-deprivation therapy. Does the logic in the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules (STRs) noted in SINQ 20200052 still apply? This SINQ confirms a diagnosis of mixed prostatic adenocarcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma is 8045. This matches the STRs instructions for Rule H21 and Table 2 (Mixed and Combination Codes), row 1. Row 1 indicates a mixed small cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma is combined small cell carcinoma (8045). For a patient without previous treatment, is this the correct mixed histology code? |
Code histology as combined small cell carcinoma (8045) based on the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, May 2023 Update, Table 2, Mixed and Combination Codes, for this mixed histology prostate carcinoma consisting of adenocarcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma regardless of treatment status. This is similar to SINQ 20200052 that applies to one tumor with mixed histologies. |
2023 |
|
|
20200047 | Stage-related Data Item/Lymphovascular Invasion--Ovary: The 2018 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual states that LVI is coded 8 (Not applicable) for Ovary (Schema 00551). What is the reason for having lymphovascular invasion (LVI) coded "8" for Ovary? See Discussion. |
This direction is also in SEER*RSA for Ovary. Researching a possible explanation for this, we found that LVI is an independent predictor of progression and survival in patients with primary epithelial ovarian cancer at early stage but not at advanced stage. However, studies also recommend that routine evaluation of LVI in ovarian cancer is highly recommended in daily practice. |
The coding instructions were developed and implemented in concert with the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 7th edition, and updated with the 8th edition as per the 2018 STORE Manual and were based on sites where distinguishing between lymphatic/small vessel invasion and venous/large vessel invasion was not medically appropriate. SEER required LVI for penis and testis cases only beginning in 2016; sites other than penis or testis are coded 8 unless required by state or central registries. The list for use of code 8 has been changed for 2021 and will no longer include Ovary. |
2020 |
|
|
20160031 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: What is the code for Rosette-forming glioneural tumor from a pathology report of a brain tumor biopsy for a date of diagnosis in 2015? See Discussion. |
This diagnosis is not listed in the ICD-O-3 though it is listed as code 9509/1 for this specific tumor in the 2007 WHO classification of Tumours of Central Nervous System. (See link: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00401-007-0243-4/fulltext.html.) |
Assign 9505/1 for Rosette-forming glioneuronal tumor. The new code, 9509/1, has not been implemented in the United States. 9505/1 is to be used until the new code is implemented. See page 7 of the NAACCR Guidelines for ICD-O-D Implementation, effective January 1, 2014, http://www.naaccr.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=u7d3sB71t5w%3d&tabid=126&mid=466. |
2016 |
|
|
20180096 | Reportability/Histology--Small intestine: Is a neuroendocrine microtumor of the duodenum a reportable tumor? See Discussion. |
This comment was added to the pathology report by the pathologist: A focus of neuroendocrine microtumor measured 350 micrometers, qualifying as a neuroendocrine microtumor. Focus was immunohistochemically positive for chromogranin and synaptophysin and negative for gastrin. The Ki-67/CD45 immunostain showed <1% positivity in microtumor. |
Neuroendocrine microtumor of the duodenum is reportable as 8240/3. "Microtumor" pertains to the size/amount of NET and not to a histologic type. |
2018 |
|
|
20110129 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How many primaries are accessioned if a pathology report for a right upper lobectomy with a chest wall resection describes the disease as 1) two foci of poorly differentiated non-small cell carcinoma, 2) mixed adenocarcinoma and non-mucinous bronchioalveolar carcinoma, each present as a separate focus? See Discussion. |
This case was abstracted as two primaries, adenocarcinoma, acinar and papillary types [8255/3] and non-mucinous bronchioloalveolar carcinoma [8252/3] per Rules M5 and M10. If this is reported as only two primaries, what is the stage for each tumor? The non-small cell tumors were the most invasive, but they were not a separate primary per Rule M10. Final pathology diagnosis for a RUL lobectomy and chest wall resection: Carcinoma of the lung with the following features: 1. Non-small cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated (see comment). Two foci in same lobe: 10 cm and 3 cm (largest dimensions of each tumor). Invades pleura (PL3), main bronchus and chest wall invasion present. 2. Adenocarcinoma and bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (see comment). Histologic subtype: Acinar and papillary (adenocarcinoma); non-mucinous (BAC). Two foci in same lobe: up to 1.0 cm. Pleural invasion absent, chest wall invasion absent. 3. Metastatic carcinoma in 5/7 peribronchial LN's. Two histologically distinct neoplasms identified in the lobectomy/chest wall resection specimen: Poorly differentiated non-small cell carcinoma, present as two foci; and adenocarcinoma and non-mucinous bronchioloalveolar carcinoma, each present as a separate focus. |
SEER will answer the question about the number of primaries to accession. Submit questions about stage to the CoC CAnswer Forum. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Accession two primaries: a mixed adenocarcinoma, acinar and papillary types [8255/3] and a bronchioloalveolar carcinoma, non-mucinous [8252/3]. The steps used to arrive at this decision are: Determine the histology code for each tumor prior to applying the Multiple Primary Rules to determine the number of primaries to accession. There are two non-small cell carcinomas, NOS; the histology code for these two tumors will be 8046/3. There is a single adenocarcinoma with acinar and papillary subtypes tumor, the histology for this tumor will be 8255. There is a single bronchioloalveolar carcinoma, non-mucinous subtype tumor; the histology for this tumor will be 8252/3. Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Lung Multiple Primary rules to determine the number of primaries. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M3, because this patient has multiple tumors. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module (from Rule M3 to Rule M12 in this case). Stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing. This patient's adenocarcinoma with acinar and papillary subtypes [8255/3] and non-mucinous bronchioloalveolar carcinoma [8252/3] are multiple primaries. Perform a second pass through the Multiple Primary rules to determine whether the two non-small cell carcinomas [8046/3] are multiple primaries or manifestations of the same primaries identified in Step 3. Start at Rule M3 again because this patient has multiple tumors. Again, these rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module (from Rule M3 to Rule M12 in this case). Stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing. This patient's non-small cell carcinomas, NOS [8046/3] are a single primary when compared to the adenocarcinoma with acinar and papillary subtypes [8255/3] and non-mucinous bronchioloalveolar carcinoma [8252/3]. Both of these histologies are more specific types of non-small cell carcinoma per the Lung Histology Groups and Specific Types Chart (Chart 1). You can also apply Rule M10 for both non-small cell carcinoma, NOS [8046/3] compared to adenocarcinoma with acinar and papillary subtypes [8255/3] and non-small cell carcinoma, NOS [8046/3] compared to non-mucinous bronchioloalveolar carcinoma [8252/3]. |
2011 |
|
|
20230022 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries: What M Rule of the updated Solid Tumor Rules, Other Sites, applies to a 2022 diagnosis of endometrial cancer, followed greater than one year later by a 2023 diagnosis of esophageal cancer with no interim evidence of tumor recurrence? See Discussion. |
These diagnoses were made greater than one year apart with a disease-free interval and M12 seems to be the first rule that applies. This rule does not specifically state the tumors diagnosed greater than 1 year apart must be in the same primary site but Note 1 could be interpreted as implying this. Note 1 states, “Clinically disease-free means that there was no evidence of recurrence in the same site on follow-up.” Does Other Sites Rule M12 (the timing rule) apply to tumors in different primary sites? It would be helpful if the notes specified this clarification, such as “Clinically disease-free means that there was no evidence of recurrence in the same site (same second and third character CXX.X) on follow-up.” |
Abstract multiple primaries using the Solid Tumor Rules, Other Sites, Rule M13. The topography differs at the second and third characters (C54.1 Endometrium; C15 Esophagus). Rule M12 refers to being disease-free vs. recurrence of a tumor, where Note 1 states that clinically disease-free means no evidence of recurrence in the same site on follow up. A note can be added to clarify that M12 applies to new tumors in the SAME site. |
2023 |
|
|
20230019 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Pancreas: How many primaries, and what M Rule applies, when a pancreatectomy identified an invasive adenocarcinoma in one pancreatic head tumor, but multiple separate pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs), WHO grade 1, in the pancreatic body? See Discussion. |
There was a 3.5 cm invasive adenocarcinoma tumor in the pancreatic head. There were four separate, sized pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors measuring 0.9, 0.7, 0.5 and 0.2 cm in the pancreatic body. There are multiple tumors with distinctly different histologies. However, Table 11 (Pancreas Histologies) does not include any entries for neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas (e.g., pancreatic NET, WHO grade 1, histology 8240). While it would seem Rule M19 should apply as they’re distinctly different histologies, because PanNETs are not included in Table 11, it is not clear which M Rule applies to these multiple tumors. If Rule M19 does not apply, we are left with Rule M21 (Abstract a single primary when there are multiple tumors that do not meet any of the above criteria). Are these separate tumors with distinctly different histologies really a single primary? Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors are not an uncommon histology, is there a reason these were not included in Table 11? |
Abstract two primaries using the 2023 Solid Tumor Rules, Other Sites, Rule M19, as adenocarcinoma and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors are two distinct histologies. The WHO Classification of Digestive Tumors, 5th ed., Chapter 10-Tumors of the Pancreas, lists both epithelial tumors and neuroendocrine neoplasm as separate entities. The Solid Tumor Rules histology-specific tables contain histologies that commonly occur in the 19 site-specific histology tables; therefore, not all histologies are listed in the rules. Further, the adenocarcinoma would be staged in the Pancreas Schema, while the neuroendocrine tumor would be staged in the NET Pancreas schema. We will consider adding PanNETs to Table 11 in a future release of the Solid Tumor Rules. |
2023 |
|
|
20081071 | CS Site Specific Factor 6--Breast: Should we assume that the invasive portion of the tumor is being referred to when a pathologist provides only a single tumor size but includes both invasive and in situ descriptors when discussing the size of that tumor? See Discussion. | There seems to be subtle variations in wording and punctuation in these cases. Would these three examples be coded the same way? Examples: |
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Code SSF6 050 [invasive and insitu components present, entire size coded in CS TS, size of invasive not stated, proportion invasive and insitu not known] when the size of the invasive portion is not provided and clarification is not available. If possible, obtain clarification from the pathologist for phrases like these and document in a text field. For example, a pathologist may confirm that when he/she states "invasive ductal carcinoma 2.0 cm, DCIS present" the size of the invasive portion is 2 cm. If so, code CS tumor size 020 and SSF6 020 and explain in a text field. |
2008 |
An official website of the United States government
