Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
20170072 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is the diagnosis of large granular lymphocyte syndrome or large granular lymphocyte disorder a reportable synonym for T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukemia? See Discussion. |
The physician consult in this case further specifies that the large granular lymphocyte disorder represents an autoimmune disease of autoimmune T-cell mediated mechanism. Is this a reportable diagnosis? |
Report large granular lymphocyte disorder (9831/3). Alternate names for T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukemia (9831/3) listed in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms Database include but are not limited to Chronic large granular lymphocyte lymphoproliferative disorder, large granular lymphocytosis, NOS, and T-cell large granular lymphocytosis. |
2017 |
|
20110147 | Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded when no bone marrow examination is performed but the peripheral blood flow cytometry listed several differential diagnoses and the physician states the diagnosis is small lymphocytic lymphoma? See Discussion. | The peripheral blood flow cytometry results state, "findings consistent with a small mature B-cell neoplasm, differential - marginal zone lymphoma, lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma, and atypical CLL." The physician states the diagnosis is "SLL." No bone marrow examination or CT scan was done to assess whether the patient had lymphadenopathy.
Per Rule PH5, if the diagnosis is B-cell CLL/SLL and peripheral blood is involved, the histology is coded to B-CLL/SLL [9823/3]. Should the primary site and histology be coded to bone marrow [C421] and CLL/SLL [9823/3] per Rule PH5 despite the physician's diagnosis of SLL [9670/3]? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This is a single primary and the primary site and histology is coded as bone marrow [C421] and CLL/SLL [9823/3]. The code 9670/3 [malignant lymphoma, small B lymphocytes, NOS] used for SLL is now obsolete.
Per the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB indicates that SLL is, "usually associated with CLL and coded CLL/SLL 9823/3. Small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) is almost identical to CLL. A somewhat arbitrary distinction is drawn between them based on the relative degree of marrow and nodal involvement and the numbers of circulating cells."
Per the Definition section in the Heme DB it states that, "CLL by definition involves blood and bone marrow at time of diagnosis." Check the PRIMARY SITE and MODULE RULE sections that indicate the primary site is C421, Rule PH5. Per this rule, code the primary site bone marrow (C421) and code the histology B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) [9823/3] when the diagnosis is B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) AND peripheral blood is involved (the bone marrow may also be involved).
This may appear to contradict the physician's diagnosis, but the 2008 WHO no longer codes CLL and SLL as separate neoplasms, rather one neoplasm, CLL/SLL, which reflects the actual neoplastic process. Those patients with SLL usually manifest CLL during the neoplastic process and those patients with CLL usually manifest SLL during the neoplastic process. WHO recommends coding to CLL/SLL rather than coding two primaries when the other neoplasm manifests.
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. |
2011 |
|
20110111 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted for a patient with a history of right breast ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed in 2007 treated with bilateral mastectomies and a right chest wall mass excised in 2010 that revealed infiltrating ductal carcinoma? See Discussion. |
The patient's right breast DCIS in 2007 was treated with bilateral mastectomies with negative lymph nodes and negative margins. The patient refused Tamoxifen at that time. In 2010 a right chest wall mass excision revealed infiltrating ductal carcinoma with negative axillary lymph nodes. The physician states this is a recurrence. Per MP/H rule M8 this invasive tumor must be abstracted as a new primary. Would the primary site of the 2010 tumor be coded to breast or chest wall given that the patient has a previous mastectomy? |
This tumor in 2010 represents a recurrence; it is not a new primary. This second tumor would be coded as a new primary ONLY if the pathology report states that it originated in breast tissue that was still present on the chest wall. When there is no mention of breast tissue in a subsequent resection, the later occurring tumor is regional metastases to the chest wall (i.e., a recurrence of the original tumor). In turn, this means that there was at least a focus of invasion present in the original tumor that was not identified by the pathologist. The behavior code on the original abstract must be changed from a /2 to a /3 and the stage must be changed from in situ to localized. |
2011 |
|
20110018 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted for a case with a history of follicular lymphoma, grade 2 and a subsequent splenectomy diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma? See Discussion. |
The patient was treated over a period of time for follicular lymphoma, grade 2. The oncologist thought the spleen was congested and removed it. The diagnosis was DLBCL. |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.. This case is accessioned as two primaries per Rule M10 which states to abstract multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm and there is a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis. The first primary is follicular lymphoma, grade 2 [9691/3] and it is a chronic neoplasm. The second primary is diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) [9680/3] and it is an acute neoplasm. 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. |
2011 |
|
20230031 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many primaries and what M Rule applies to a 2022 diagnosis of right upper lobe non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) when the patient has a history acinar adenocarcinoma in the right lower lobe of the lung in 2020, followed by squamous cell carcinoma in the right middle lobe of the lung in 2021? See Discussion. |
The patient was not synchronously diagnosed with multiple tumors, but three separate tumors with three different histologies were diagnosed at different times and no more specific histology was provided for the NSCLC. The timing rules do not apply to this case (the tumors were not greater than 3 years apart and they were not synchronously/simultaneously diagnosed). While NSCLC is a NOS histology for both adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, it is unclear if Rule M8 should apply because NSCLC is not listed in Table 3 (Table 3 is not an exhaustive list). In some situations, Rule M8 would apply if the tumors were different histologies and one of the histologies was not listed in the Table. Does that logic still apply if one of the tumors is NSCLC? If NSCLC is excluded from Rule M8, is Rule M14 the appropriate M Rule for the 2022 NSCLC diagnosis? |
The patient's previous acinar adenocarcinoma in the right lower lobe of the lung in 2020 and squamous cell carcinoma in the right middle lobe of the lung in 2021 were correctly abstracted as two primaries per rule M8 as they are in different rows in Table 3. The NSCLC, RUL (8046) diagnosed in 2022 would not be abstracted as a third primary because NSCLC is a broad category which includes all histologies in Table 3 (except for small cell carcinoma/neuroendocrine tumors (NET Tumors) 8041 and all subtypes), and because it was diagnosed less than 3 years after the 2021 squamous cell carcinoma, RML (8070). |
2023 |
|
20190061 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be reported for a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) on core biopsy of the right breast in 2016 with all treatment refused, followed by a 2019 large right breast mass ulcerating the skin and clinical diagnosis of invasive breast cancer (patient again refused all treatment)? See Discussion. |
The patient was never treated for the 2016 diagnosis, so the 2019 diagnosis is the same tumor that has progressed. Prior SINQ 20091096 for a similar case type cited multiple primaries per the 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules, Rule M8, the same rule as the current Solid Tumor rule M17, because this is to be reported as an incidence case. However, it seems like Solid Tumor Rule M3 would apply because a single tumor is a single primary, and behavior of the 2016 primary would then be updated from /2 to /3. It is unclear how one would advance to the Multiple Tumors module and apply M17 because there is really only a single tumor in this case. |
Since the first diagnosis is in situ, and the later diagnosis is invasive, the 2019 diagnosis is a new primary even though it may be the same non-treated tumor. For cases diagnosed 2018 and later, abstract multiple primaries according to the 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M17 that states Abstract multiple primaries when an invasive tumor occurs more than 60 days after an in situ tumor in the same breast. Note 1: The rules are hierarchical. Only use this rule when none of the previous rules apply. Note 2: Abstract both the invasive and in situ tumors. Note 3: Abstract as multiple primaries even if physician states the invasive tumor is disease recurrence or progression. Note 4: This rule is based on long-term epidemiologic studies of recurrence intervals. The specialty medical experts (SMEs) reviewed and approved these rules. Many of the SMEs were also authors, co-authors, or editors of the AJCC Staging Manual. |
2019 |
|
20110138 | First course treatment--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is first course of treatment when a patient received multiple different chemotherapy regimens before a complete remission for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma was achieved? |
The patient was initially treated with involved field radiation and R-CHOP. The patient still had residual disease and the treatment was changed to RICE. Following RICE, there was still residual disease and the patient underwent another unspecified chemotherapy treatment. The patient was then transferred to a transplant center for pre-transplant chemotherapy and a bone marrow transplant. The patient achieved a complete response after transplant. Should the R-CHOP and radiation be the first course treatment in a case like this, or would first course treatment include all chemotherapy and the transplant? |
For hard-to-treat diseases such as DLBCL, the treatment plan outlined prior to treatment beginning may indicate, "The first course of treatment will be radiation and R-CHOP. If the R-CHOP does not achieve remission, we will use RICE." In other words, the first course treatment plan includes a second round of chemotherapy if the patient has not achieved a complete response after the R-CHOP and radiation. If the treatment plan was documented like this for the patient, the first course treatment includes R-CHOP, involved field radiation and RICE. However, if there is no initial treatment plan in the medical record, all treatment provided after the date when "residual disease" or "failed to achieve remission" is documented in the medical record is either second or a subsequent course of therapy. |
2011 |
|
20230058 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be accessioned for a patient with known history of right breast carcinoma in 2018 followed by 2022 biopsy proven right and left breast invasive ductal carcinoma if the physician states this is a right breast primary with widespread metastasis including the left breast? See Discussion. |
The patient was initially diagnosed with invasive mammary carcinoma of the right breast in 2018, treated with lumpectomy, sentinel node biopsy, radiation, and hormones. Hormones were discontinued early due to dysfunctional uterine bleeding. |
This is a single primary according to the Solid Tumor Rules.
|
2023 |
|
20180026 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned when a prophylactic mastectomy reveals a final diagnosis of invasive tubular carcinoma, but the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Protocol includes ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) sized separately and it is not clear if these are different tumors? See Discussion. |
The patient was incidentally diagnosed with cancer on a prophylactic mastectomy, so there are no positive imaging findings to correlate the number of tumors/masses. The final diagnosis was invasive tubular carcinoma, and referred to the CAP Protocol. The CAP notes: However, it does not specify whether the single contiguous focus also includes the in situ component. The CAP goes on to note DCIS was present: The gross description does not provide any indication of either a single or multiple tumors/masses/lesions, though it was referred to as "Lesion 1" in the gross description with no indication of other lesions. The format of the CAP Protocol frequently does not specify whether the DCIS is a separate measured tumor, or if it is a component of the invasive tumor. This makes it difficult to determine whether the DCIS should be a separate primary when the invasive tumor is not also a type of ductal carcinoma. Per both the 2007 MP/H and 2018 Solid Tumor Rules, an invasive tubular carcinoma and a ductal carcinoma in situ would be multiple primaries if they were multiple tumors. Should we default to Rule M1: Abstract a single primary when it is not possible to determine if there is a single or multiple tumors? Or should we assume these are separate tumors because they were both sized, the focality only described a single invasive tumor, and the tumors are not both ductal carcinomas? |
Accession a single primary using Solid Tumor Rule M3. Based on the information provided, this was described as "Lesion 1' with no other lesions noted in the gross description. If the DCIS was a separate tumor, this would have been noted by the pathologist. Reminder, the breast CAP protocol is a checklist for pathologists to note their findings while reviewing the slides and/or specimen. The findings and notes should be consolidated into a final/synoptic report. |
2018 |
|
20021141 | EOD-Extension--Lung: When only minimal information is available, such as scans and needle biopsies, should EOD extension be coded to localized or unknown? See discussion. | The patient was diagnosed with non-small carcinoma of the lung by needle biopsy of the right upper lobe Feb. 2, 2001. History revealed that CT performed prior to needle bx showed 2 right sided lung lesions and right hilar adenopathy. Chest x-ray following needle bx showed irregular opacity within the RML appears unchanged. Soft tissue prominence in the azygos region, possibly related LN enlargement. This is the only information available.
Should we code extension as 30 [localized, NOS]? |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 99 [unknown] if no additional information is available for this case. Because the second lesion in the right lung could be malignant, the extension code might be 77 [separate tumor nodule(s) in different lobe]. With the possibility of a more extensive stage, the status of the hilar lymph nodes is also not clear. The abstracted information is insufficient to stage this case. |
2002 |