Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20150007 | MP/H Rules/Histology: What is the proper histology code -- mucin producing adenocarcinoma or cholangiocarcinoma for the following case? See discussion. |
4/10/13 Partial hepatectomy: well differentiated mucin producing adenoca involve right and left hepatic ducts, common hepatic duct & common bile duct. Invasion beyond wall of bile duct. CT Scan after 1st surgery shows residual neoplasm cannot be excluded
7/31/13 Left lateral segmentectomy: residual well differentiated cholangiiocarcinoma involving connective tissue surrounding major bile ducts. Per medical director, histolgically code to cholangiocarcinoma.
Primary site: Extra hepatic bile duct. Chemo (5FU, Leucovorin, Oxaliplatin) was started 5/1.
|
Code the histology as well differentiated mucin producing adenoca based on the 4/10/13 pathology report.
Code histology from the pathology report of the procedure which removed the most tumor tissue -- this is from the MP/H general instructions for coding histology. We are assuming that the partial hepatectomy removed the most tumor tissue in this case.
Per WHO, mucin producing adenoca is a variant of cholangiocarcioma. |
2015 |
|
|
20150005 | Reportability--Skin: Is this case not reportable if the intranasal polyp is covered with cutaneous epithelium (essentially skin) or, is it reportable as a primary intranasal basal cell carcinoma? I have found one article regarding primary intranasal basal cells, which are described as being "very rare". But, I am not sure whether, in those cases, cutaneous epithelium was found.
FINAL DIAGNOSIS: (A) Nasal cavity, polyp, excision: Sinonasal inflammatory polyp with overlying cutaneous epithelium showing foci of superficial (noninvasive) basal cell carcinoma |
Report this case as a basal cell carcinoma, noninvasive, of the nasal cavity, based on the information provided.
The polyp was removed from the nasal cavity (C300) which is a reportable site for basal cell carcinoma. |
2015 | |
|
|
20150003 | Reportability/Behavior: Is the following reportable, and if so, what is the histology code? Final Diagnosis (on multiple conjunctive excisions): Conjunctiva - primary acquired melanosis with atypia (see note). Note: "In all 3 specimens the process extends to the margins of excision. Complete extirpation is recommended (primary acquired melanosis with atypia is considered melanoma in situ). |
Do not report primary acquired melanosis with atypia.
According to our expert pathologist consultant, "There has been a lot of debate in the literature about the diagnostic criteria, terminology, and natural history of primary acquired melanosis [PAM]. Your case comes down squarely on the main issue, which is whether PAM with atypia should be regarded as melanoma in situ. In most studies it appears that PAMs with no atypia or mild atypia do not progress to melanoma, and only a small percentage of those with severe atypia do so." "PAM, even with atypia, is not melanoma in situ, and should not be reported."
For further information, see this article for a review of a large number of patients: Shields, Jerry A, Shields, Carol L, et al. Primary Acquired Melanosis of the Conjunctiva: Experience with 311 Eyes. Trans. Am Ophthalmol Soc 105:61-72, Dec 2007.
|
2015 | |
|
|
20150002 | Reportability--Bladder: Please explain the reportability of UroVysion for bladder cancer in the following circumstances.
1. Patient has positive UroVysion test and follow up biopsy is negative. Is this case reportable with a diagnosis date the date of the UroVysion?
2. Patient has positive UroVysion test and follow up biopsy is positive for cancer. Is the diagnosis date of the date of the positive UroVysion or the date of the positive biopsy? Thank you. |
Do not report a case based on UroVysion test results alone. Report a case when there is positive histology, a physician statement of malignancy, and/or the patient was treated for cancer.
1. Do not report the case.
2. Report the case based on the positive biopsy. |
2015 | |
|
|
20150001 | Reportability/Histology: Would a histology reading "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix be reportable? Since the word "tumor NOS" and "neoplasm NOS" both code to 8000, I would assume they would be interchangeable but just wanted to verify. According to SINQ 20130027 & 20140002 a "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" of the appendix IS reportable. |
"Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix is reportable. According to the WHO classification of Digestive System Tumors, "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix is synonymous with NET. WHO states on page 13 "The term 'neuroendocrine neoplasm' can be used synonymously with 'neuroendocrine tumor.'" Neuroendocrine "tumor," or NET G1, is listed in the WHO classification as one of the malignant neoplasms of the appendix. |
2015 | |
|
|
20140090 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Endometrium: What is the correct histology code for an endometrial cancer described as "Adenocarcinoma with areas of squamous differentiation?" |
Assign 8570/3 to adenocarcinoma with squamous differentiation of the endometrium. The most recent WHO classification does not list "adenocarcinoma" for tumors of the uterine corpus. WHO does state that "endometroid carcinoma of the usual type is a glandular neoplasm..." Further, WHO states "Endometroid carcinoma typically displays a glandular or villoglandular architecture..." Based on the WHO classification, the use of the term "adenocarcinoma" in this context can be interpreted as endometroid carcinoma. |
2014 | |
|
|
20140089 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the 2014 diagnosis be abstracted as a new primary since it is not mantle cell lymphoma and all of the types listed in the differential diagnosis would be a new primary? See discussion. |
Mantle cell lymphoma diagnosed in 1997 which was treated with chemotherapy. Now in 2014 a 'relapse' of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. They do a biopsy of the pericardium, which is called low grade B cell non Hodgkin lymphoma. See comment. The comment says histochemical stains are reviewed and findings are consistent with involvement by a CD5 positive low grade B cell lymphoma. Lack of cyclin D1 and SOX-11 positivity as well as negative IGH-CCND1 FISH analysis essentially rule out mantle cell lymphoma. The morphologic and immunophenotypic features of this disorder are not specific for any lymphoma subtype. The differential includes CLL, marginal zone lymphoma, and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. If this is coded NHL, NOS (9591) it is the same primary as seq. 1 and would not be abstracted. |
This is the same primary, the mantle cell lymphoma.
Differential diagnoses cannot be used to assign histology. For the 2014 diagnosis, the only histology that can be assigned is 9591/3 for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS. (CLL, mantle cell lymphoma and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma are all NHL's.)
Compare the 1997 diganosis of mantle cell lymphoma with the 2014 diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Start with Rule M1. The first rule that applies is Rule M15, which instructs you to use the multiple primaries calculator. Enter 9673/3 and then 9591/3 and then calculate. The result is same primary.
If at a later time one of the differential diagnoses is confirmed, apply the rules again.
|
2014 |
|
|
20140088 | Reportability--GIST: The 2014 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual and the answer to SINQ 20100014 appear to conflict with respect to reporting GIST cases. The manual states (p.5, exception 1) that we are to accession the case if the patient is treated for cancer. However, the patient in Example #7 in the SINQ discussion is receiving chemotherapy, but is deemed not reportable. This is a problematic issue in our area, as pathologists prefer using the NCCN “Risk Stratification of Primary GIST by Mitotic Index, Size and Site” table rather than stating whether the tumor is benign or malignant. Although they tell us that moderate or high risk should receive treatment, they will not characterize them as malignant. |
Determining reportability for GIST is problematic because of the reluctance of pathologists to use the term "malignant" for GIST cases. If you can document the pathologist's terminology and case characteristics (e.g. treatment) that correspond to "malignant" for your registry as part of the registry's policies and procedures, you can report those cases as malignant.
The exception cited above in the SEER manual pertains to a clinical diagnosis with a negative pathology report. Normally, the negative pathology report would override the clinical diagnosis and the case would not be reportable. However, if the patient is treated for a malignancy in spite of the negative pathology, report the case.
|
2014 | |
|
|
20140087 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Ampulla of vater: Is this a new primary? Patient has intramucosal adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma of the ampula of vater in Sept. of 2011. In May of 2012, patient has another ampullary adenoma with intraepithelial carcinoma (pTis) and an area suspicious for invasion. This is coded 8263/3.
Rule M14, Multiple in situ and/or malignant polyps are a single primary, precedes rule M15, An invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days after diagnosis is a multiple primary, per the MP rules for 'Other sites', |
Rule M14 applies. Abstract this case as a single primary. |
2014 | |
|
|
20140086 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Colon: Does rule M7 apply here (A frank malignant or in situ adenocarcinoma and an in situ or malignant tumor in a polyp are a single primary)? Can the frank malignant adenocarcinoma be any specific type of adenocarcinoma for this rule to apply?
A patient has 2 synchronous tumors in the ascending colon. The first is grade 3 adenocarcinoma with signet ring differentiation and focal mucinous features (8255/3). The second is grade 2-3 adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma (8263/3). |
M7 applies to this case. The frank adenocarcinoma can be a specific type of adenocarcinoma. |
2014 |
An official website of the United States government
