System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 04/25/2025 01:14 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20140003 Surgery of Primary Site/Surgical Procedure of Other Sites--Endometrium: How are these fields coded for an endometrial primary when the patient undergoes a radical tumor cytoreduction including modified radical hysterectomy, BSO, omentectomy, resection of intra-abdominal and intrapelvic implants, and partial cystectomy? See discussion.

When other regional sites (besides the omentum) are removed with the primary site, how is Surgical Procedure of Other Site coded? There is no cytoreduction surgery code for endometrial primaries, and this patient does not appear to qualify for any of the specific pelvic exenteration codes.

Per SINQ 20091118, an omentectomy is not coded in the Surgical Procedure of Other Site field when it is performed with a hysterectomy.

 In general, record surgery of sites/organs not covered in the surgery of primary site codes under surgery of other site. For this case, code the partial cystectomy under surgery of other site. As you point out, the omentectomy is not recorded under surgery of other site when performed with a hysterectomy for an endometrial primary. 2014
20140002 Reportability--Appendix: Is a pathologic final diagnosis of an appendix with "well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (carcinoid)" reportable? See discussion. SINQ 20130027 states that "well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" of the appendix is reportable (8240/3) while "carcinoid" tumors of the appendix are not reportable (8240/1). Please explain the difference between "well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" of the appendix and a "carcinoid" of the appendix.

Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor of the appendix is reportable. The difference is terminology. "Carcinoid" is listed in ICD-O-3 as a /1 for appendix making it non-reportable.

When both terms are used, ask for clarification from the pathologist. Failing that, accept the reportable terminology and report the case.

 2014
20140001 Grade--Brain and CNS: How should grade be coded for a pineal parenchymal tumor of "intermediate differentiation"? See discussion.

Per a web search, the term "pineal parenchymal tumor of intermediate differentiation" refers to a pineal tumor with the histology/behavior that falls somewhere between the category of pineocytoma (9361/1) and pineoblastoma (9362/3). In other words, it is a malignant tumor that is a WHO grade II/III neoplasm because it's histologic features and behavior are not quite equivalent to a pineoblastoma (WHO grade IV). Thus, it appears the expression "intermediate differentiation" is actually referring to a type of WHO classification system rather than the grade field.

Should the type of documentation provided in pathology report be used to imply the grade field is being referenced and thus be coded to 2 for "intermediate differentiation" or should grade be coded to 9 based on the information found during the web search?

Code the grade as 2 based on instruction #8 in the revised grade instructions for 2014.

Do not use WHO grade to code the grade field for CNS tumors.

 2014
20130222 MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: How is the histology coded for a single bladder tumor showing invasive urothelial carcinoma with extensive divergent differentiation including small cell carcinoma, micropapillary carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma features? See Discussion. MP/H rules seem to lead to Rule H8 which indicates that one use the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code. If one applies Rule H8, the histology is coded to 8131/3 [micropapillary urothelial carcinoma]. That would ignore the small cell carcinoma, which seems prognostically more significant. Code the histology to 8045/3 [mixed small cell carcinoma], a combination of small cell with other types of carcinoma. There is currently no rule in the urinary site MP/H Rules for this combination of histologies. This will be included in the next revision of the MP/H Rules. 2013
20130221 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Prostate: How many primaries are accessioned for a diagnosis of metastatic small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the prostate following a previous diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the prostate? See Discussion.

Would a second prostate primary with histology coded to 8041/3 [small cell carcinoma] be accessioned for the following examples? Or are these metastases despite the different histologies?

Example 1: Prostate adenocarcinoma diagnosed in 2001, no treatment given. Metastatic small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma diagnosed 03/2012 on liver biopsy with a physician's statement in 4/2012 that the prostate is likely the cause of the metastasis to the liver.

Example 2: Prostate adenocarcinoma diagnosed in 2006, treated with TURP. Bone marrow biopsy in 5/2012 shows involvement by metastatic small cell carcinoma with morphologic and immunophenotypic features that argue against prostatic adenocarcinoma. The oncologist assessment states, "The patient has Stage 4 small cell carcinoma of the prostate and the bone marrow biopsy path shows metastatic small cell carcinoma (likely prostate in origin)."

Accession two primaries, adenocarcinoma [8140/3] of the prostate [C619], followed by small cell (neuroendocrine) carcinoma [8041/3] of the prostate [C619] for each of the examples given per Rule M10.

In each case, the second histology (because it is not adenocarcinoma) is a new prostate primary. Small cell carcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma are not adenocarcinomas. As a result they are not covered by Rule M3.

2013
20130220 Reportability--Thyroid: Is a hyalinizing trabecular neoplasm of the thyroid reportable? See Discussion. The pathology comment states: Hyalinizing trabecular neoplasm is considered by some to represent a variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma because of the similar nuclear cytology, immunoprofile and RET-oncogene rearrangements.

Hyalinizing trabecular neoplasm is not reportable.

Hyalinizing trabecular neoplasm, or hyalinizing trabecular tumor, is a synonym for hyalinizing trabecular adenoma [8336/0] in the ICD-O-3. The 2004 WHO classification states that "fine needle aspiration biopsy is often interpreted as papillary carcinoma because of the nuclear features in the tumor."

2013
20130219 Date of diagnosis/Ambiguous terminology--Breast: Can a mammogram BIRADS 4 or 5 assessment be used to assess reportability and can the date of the mammogram be used to code the date of diagnosis? See Discussion.

  1. Assessment: BIRADS category 4-suspicious. Findings are considered suspicious/indeterminate for malignancy

  • Assessment: BIRADS 5- highly suspicious. Findings are highly suggestive of malignancy.

  • Assessment: BIRADS 4- suspicious abnormality consider biopsy

    • Can the BIRADS number be used to assess reportability? Can a BIRADS assessment of "suspicious" be used to code the date of diagnosis?

    		BIRADS category 4 and category 5 mammograms are not to be interpreted as a reportable "malignancy" for cancer registry purposes nor are they to be used to code the date of diagnosis should the patient subsequently have a malignancy confirmed. 2013
    		20130218 2013
    		20130216

    Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Need help determining primary site for Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma 9680/3 confirmed pathologically in right ovary and soft tissue left adnexa. No lymph nodes examined pathologically. Patient treated outside and no access to notes. See discussion.

    CT A/P massively enlarged uterus with no distention between the vagina, cervix or proximal to mid uterus identified. Highly concerning for malignancy though distinct etiology not clear. Ovarian not favored though not excluded given lack of clearly defined fat planes between uterus and either ovary. Extensive bilateral iliac chain and periaortic/pericaval lymphadenopathy.

    Trying to work through Module 7 in the Hem DB. According to the ovary site, regional lymph nodes include the iliac and the para-aortic lymph nodes. This makes me think I should use Rule PH35 (organ and regional nodes). However, using Appendix C in the Hem DB, the iliac lymph nodes are part of the pelvic C775 while the para-aortic (periaortic) are intra-abdominal C772. This makes me wonder if I should go with rule PH36 present in organ and nodes that are not regional.

    Use Rule PH25 and code primary site to C569.

    First determine if the iliac and para-aortic lymph nodes are regional for Ovary. Use AJCC TNM or Collaborative Stage. Per AJCC 7th edition, regional lymph nodes for ovary include iliac and para-aortic (pg. 419). Therefore, this case involves an organ and its regional lymph nodes. Use appendix C to determine how to code a lymph node primary. It should not be used to determine whether lymph nodes are regional for a specific organ.

    		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