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: 09/02/2025 16:18 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20170043

Reportability--Ovary: Is ovarian mucinous borderline tumor of intestinal type with microinvasion reportable? If reportable, what is the histology? See Discussion.

4/18/17 Right ovary and fallopian tube, salpingo-oophorectomy: mucinous borderline tumor of intestinal type with microinvasion; greatest dimension 24.5 cm. Left fallopian tube and ovary, salpingo-oophorectomy: Benign ovary with multiple benign Mullerian inclusions. Benign fallopian tube with multiple paratubal cysts. Per pathology: pT1a pNx.

For an ovarian mucinous borderline tumor, the term "microinvasion" is not an indication of malignancy according to the WHO classification of tumors, and our expert pathologist consultant agrees. Therefore, borderline mucinous ovarian tumor with microinvasion is not reportable. Low malignant potential/borderline ovarian tumors are defined by the pathology of the primary tumor in the ovary, and microinvasion there, or invasion in implants does not change that diagnosis. The only exception is when the lymph nodes are positive for malignancy, the case is reportable. If the lymph nodes are positive for mucinous borderline tumor, the case is not reportable.

 2017
20170044

Histology--Sarcoma: What is the histology code for epithelioid angiosarcoma?

Assign 9120/3 for epithelioid angiosarcoma.

 2017
20170004

MP/H Ruels/Histology--Kidney/renal pelvis: How is MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with Xp11 translocation coded? See Discussion.

Pathology states: Translocation renal cell carcinoma. Comment Tumor morphology and IHC profile consistent with MiT family translocation RCC with Xp11 translocation.

Assign 8312/3 to MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with Xp11 translocation.

The recent WHO 4th Ed Tumors of the Urinary System has proposed a new ICD-O-3 code for MiT family translocation RCC, however the implementation of this new code has not yet been approved by the standard setters (SEER, CoC, CDC, NAACCR). Until it is approved, code histology to renal cell carcinoma (8312/3).

 2017
20170035

MP/H Rules/Histology: What is the histology code of serous tubal intraepithelial (in situ) carcinoma (STIC), bilateral fallopian tubes?

Assign 8441/2. This is based on the WHO classification for female reproductive system tumors.

 2017
20170065

MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: How should histology be coded for a single tumor with final diagnosis undifferentiated (anaplastic) carcinoma arising in association with papillary thyroid carcinoma and the Summary Cancer Data states Histologic type: Undifferentiated (anaplastic) carcinoma only? See Discussion.

The Summary Cancer Data does not seem to describe a more specific histology, but it does describe the tumor histology with the worst outcome and the most extensive tumor. The anaplastic carcinoma grossly extended into skeletal muscle and gave rise to multiple regional lymph node metastases. The more appropriate histology seems to be 8021.

However, current MP/H Rules for a single tumor indicate the histology should be coded to the numerically higher histology code (8260). Coding the histology to 8260 does not account for the more aggressive tumor. Should this histology be 8260 or 8021?

Code the most specific histologic term, 8260, for papillary carcinoma of the thyroid using Multiple Primary/Histology Rule H13 for Other Sites (single tumor, invasive section). Use text fields to describe the complete histology.

 2017
20170001

MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney: How is the histology coded and what rule(s) apply to the classification of succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma? See Discussion.

Partial nephrectomy showed carcinoma, histologic type: succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma. This is not a term in the ICD-O, and is not a histology covered in the Kidney MPH rules. However, a recent web search indicates this is a specific type of RCC that was added to the 2016 WHO classification of RCC (per abstract: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27179267) and makes up 0.05-0.2% of RCC cases (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4229399/).

Code the histology to renal cell carcinoma, NOS (8312/3). While WHO lists succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma in the latest edition, no specific histology code is provided. MP/H Rule H10 applies since only one histology type is provided, though no code is listed.

 2017
20170036

Grade--Prostate: How are the prostate-related fields completed when documentation in pathology reports only includes one of the new grade groups? See Discussion.

Our pathologists have starting to use a new prostate cancer grading system that was adopted by WHO in 2016. The new grading scheme correlates with the prior Gleason grading scheme as follows:

Grade Group 1 = Gleason score 6 or less

Grade Group 2 = Gleason score 3+4=7

Grade Group 3 = Gleason score 4+3 = 7

Grade Group 4 = Gleason score 8

Grade Group 5 = Gleason score 9-10

Our pathologists are no longer dictating the Gleason Primary and Secondary Pattern values nor the Gleason's Score. Reverse correlation from the new grade groups to the required patterns and score are difficult with Grade Groups 2 and 3 needing to be distinguished from one another and Grade Group 5 including two unique scores.

The prostate-related fields include:

Collaborative Site Specific Factor 7: Gleason's Primary Pattern and Secondary Pattern Values on Needle Core Biopsy/TURP

Collaborative Site Specific Factor 8: Gleason's Score On Needle Core Biopsy/TURP

Collaborative Site Specific Factor 9: Gleason's Primary Pattern and Secondary Pattern Values on Prostatectomy/Autopsy

Collaborative Site Specific Factor 10: Gleason's Score on Prostatectomy/Autopsy

When all you have is the grade group, you may use the following table to convert the Prostate Grade Groups to the appropriate code for the indicated fields.

Grade Group Gleason Score Gleason Pattern SSF7 SSF8 SSF9 SSF10 Grade/diff

Grade Group 1 6 or less <=3+3 099 999 099 999 1

Grade Group 2 7 3+4 034 007 034 007 2

Grade Group 3 7 4+3 043 007 043 007 2

Grade Group 4 8 4+4, 3+5, 5+3 999 999 999 999 3

Grade Group 5 9-10 4+5, 5+4, 5+5 099 999 099 999 3

 2017
20170019

MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: How should histology be coded for a mixed germ cell tumor that also includes choriocarcinoma now that non-seminomatous mixed germ cell tumors (9065) and seminomatous mixed germ cell tumors (9085) are collapsed for analysis? See Discussion.

The MP/H Rules (Other Sites Terms and Definitions, Table 2) currently lists a separate mixed germ cell tumor code (9101) for germ cell tumors with choriocarcinoma plus teratoma, seminoma or embryonal carcinoma. Is this separate mixed germ cell tumor code still to be used now that all mixed germ cell tumors (9065 and 9085) have been collapsed into code 9085 for analysis per SINQs 20160056 and 20110013? The current WHO Classification for testis tumors does not list code 9101, but also collapses all seminomatous and nonseminomatous mixed germ cell tumors of more than one histologic type under code 9085.

While WHO 4th Ed Tumors of Urinary and Male Genital System does not include 9101/3, this code has not been made obsolete. Follow the 2007 MP/H rules and code histology to 9101/3 per Other sites rule H16, Table 2.

 2017
20170023

Reportability/Date of Diagnosis--Prostate: Is PI-RADS 5 diagnostic of prostate cancer, and if so, can we use the date of the impression on the scan that states PI-RADS category 5 as the diagnosis date? See Discussion.

We are seeing more use of PI-RAD categories on scans. The final impression on the scan will be PI-RADS Category 5, with no specific statement of malignancy. The scans include a blanket statement with the definitions of the PI-RADS categories as below.

PI-RADS (v2) categories:

PI-RADS 1 - Very low (clinically significant cancer is highly unlikely to be present)

PI-RADS 2 - Low (clinically significant cancer is unlikely to be present)

PI-RADS 3 - Intermediate (the presence of clinically significant cancer is equivocal)

PI-RADS 4 - High (clinically significant cancer is likely to be present)

PI-RADS 5 - Very high (clinically significant cancer is highly likely to be present)

A previous SINQ 20010094 indicates that we cannot use BI-RADS categories for breast cancer diagnosis, and SINQ 20160008 indicates we can use LI-RADS for HCC diagnosis, but those definitions are slightly different. Most often there will be a subsequent biopsy diagnosis of carcinoma, so the question is also in reference to Diagnosis Date. Can we use the date of the scans impression, which states PI-RADS category 5, as the Diagnosis Date?

Updated answer

PI-RADS categories 4 and 5 are reportable, unless there is other information to the contrary.

PI-RADS 4: high (clinically significant cancer is likely to be present)

PI-RADS 5: very high (clinically significant cancer is highly likely to be present)

Use the date of the scan as the date of diagnosis.

 2017
20170058

MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the correct histology code for an initial biopsy of non-small cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine phenotype, possible large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma with a subsequent re-biopsy showing poorly differentiated small cell carcinoma after chemotherapy with no response? See discussion.

Patient had a biopsy in April 2014; pathology was reported as non-small cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine phenotype, possible large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. The patient had five cycles of cisplatin/etoposide with no response. In May 2015, a re-biopsy at a referral institution reports poorly differentiated small cell carcinoma and states "feels that this could have been the histology all along and why patient has failed multi lines of chemo."

Code to 8041, small cell carcinoma, because the medical opinon confirms that this was the correct histology from the begining.

"Possible" is not an ambiguous term used to code histology. The MP/H rules do not include coding phenotype. That leaves non-small cell (8046/3) at time of diagnosis. Chemotherapy does not alter cell type so its likely the tumor was small cell all along only now proven with additional testing.

Page 14 of the SEER Coding Manual gives examples of when to change the abstract's original codes and here is one example: When better information is available later. Example 1: Consults from specialty labs, pathology report addendums or comments or other information have been added to the chart. Reports done during the diagnostic workup and placed on the chart after the registrar abstracted the information may contain valuable information. Whenever these later reports give better information about the histology, grade of tumor, primary site, etc., change the codes to reflect the better information.

 2017