Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20160040 | Reportability--Thyroid: Is a final diagnosis of "non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features" (NIFTP) reportable when the diagnosis comment states this tumor was historically classified as encapsulated follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma? See Discussion. |
The term "non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features" is now being used, instead of the previous classification of an encapsulated malignant thyroid tumor. Recent evidence supports a very minimal risk of aggressive behavior for these tumors, and pathologists in our area are no longer classifying these as malignant in the final diagnosis. |
As of January 1, 2021 Non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP) C739 is no longer reportable for cases diagnosed 1/1/2021 forward. See the ICD-O-3.2 material on the NAACCR website,https://www.naaccr.org/icdo3/#1582820761121-27c484fc-46a7 _____________________________________________ Answer for cases diagnosed 1-1-2017 to 12/31/2020 Report NIFTP and assign ICD-O-3 morphology code 8343/2. See the NAACCR document, page 3, https://20tqtx36s1la18rvn82wcmpn-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/What-You-Need-to-Know-for-2017.pdf |
2016 |
|
|
20160061 | Reportability/Behavior--Small intestine: Is a carcinoid tumor, described as benign, reportable? See Discussion.
|
A segmental resection pathology report states "benign mucosal endocrine proliferation consistent with a 0.3 cm duodenal carcinoid tumor." The diagnosis comment further states, "the separate small endocrine lesion is histologically benign, consistent with a 3 mm carcinoid tumor." This seems to be an example of a description of a microcarcinoid tumor referenced in SINQ 20160011. However, in this new case the pathologist specifically states the tumor is benign.
The WHO definition of microcarcinoid indicates this is a precursor lesion, which seems to indicate it is not malignant. However, SEER's previous answer stated we should report these tumors because the ICD-O-3 definition of carcinoid is 8240/3. Do you think that the mention of the term "benign" in the pathology report is actually related to the size of this lesion? Is the reference to benign mucosal endocrine proliferation referring to the WHO classification (making the case reportable as stated in SINQ 20160011), or is this a situation in which we should apply the Matrix Rule and the case is nonreportable? |
This carcinoid tumor, described as benign, is not reportable. According to our expert pathologist consultant, this case is not reportable because the pathologist uses "benign" to describe the mucosal endocrine proliferation and based on that, the neuroendocrine cell proliferation is hyperplasia/benign - not reportable. |
2016 |
|
|
20160020 | Reportability/Histology-Gallbladder: Is high grade biliary intraepithelial neoplasia of the gallbladder reportable? |
High grade biliary intraepithelial neoplasia of the gallbladder is reportable. Assign code 8148/2. It is also known as biliary intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3, or BilIN-3. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160041 | First course treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Skin: How are Surgery of Primary Site and Surgical Procedure of Other Site coded for an eyelid skin primary diagnosed by punch biopsy and treated with an orbital exenteration? See Discussion. |
Unlike most other sites, there is no specific code for a radical surgical procedure of a skin primary. In this case, the patient was diagnosed with a sebaceous cell carcinoma of the lower eyelid skin by punch biopsy. The tumor was large and an orbital exenteration was planned. Despite the extensive surgery performed, skin margins were less than 1 cm. Is an orbital exenteration a "major amputation" (code 60) in this case? Given that the margins were not greater than 1 cm, codes 45 - 47 (which includes a minor (local) amputation) don't seem to apply. However, if this procedure cannot be classified as "minor amputation" then doesn't it seem overkill to refer to the procedure as a "major amputation"?
An alternative would be to code Surgery of Primary Site to 32 for the skin resection (punch biopsy followed by a gross excision of the lesion, margins less than 1 cm) and code Surgical Procedure of Other Site to 2 (non-primary surgical procedure to other regional sites) to record the removal of the globe and orbit as part of the orbital exenteration. Which is correct? |
There is a similar question in the FORDS forum of the CoC CAnswer Forum. CoC is the curator for the surgery codes.
Surgical Procedure to Primary Site - Gross excision of the lesion, code in 30s series Surgical Procedure to Other Site (removal of eye) - code 4
|
2016 |
|
|
20160050 | Reportability--Appendix: Is a mucinous cystic neoplasm with high grade dysplasia of the appendix reportable? See discussion. |
The language appears similar to the mucinous cystic neoplasm of the pancreas with high grade dysplasia (8470/2), which was clarified to be reportable in 2014. |
WHO does not list MCN as a histology for the appendix. This case should be clarified with the pathologist.
For pancreas specifically, the term "mucinous cystic neoplasm (MCN) with high grade dysplasia" replaced the term "mucinous cystadenocarcinoma, noninvasive" according to WHO. MCN with high grade dysplasia of the pancreas is reportable because it is used in place of the now obsolete terminology. If we did not make the new terminology reportable, trends over time could be affected.
|
2016 |
|
|
20160064 | Behavior--Prostate: What is the correct behavior of intraductal carcinoma from a prostate biopsy with a Gleason score 4+4=8. While highly aggressive, but not suggestive of invasion, coding behavior as /2 seems inappropriate. |
WHO classifies intraductal carcinoma of the prostate 8500/2. According to WHO, "the hallmark of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate is a proliferation of prostate carcinoma cells that is within and may significantly expand the native prostatic ducts and acini, with the basal cell layer at least partially preserved." Further, differentiation between intraductal carcinoma and infiltrating high-grade carcinoma of the prostate may require basal cell stains. Under Prognosis, WHO states: " intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on prostate biopsies is often associated with high-grade cancer (with a mean Gleason score of 8) ." So while it may seem counter-intuitive, assign behavior code /2 when the diagnosis is intraductal carcinoma of the prostate. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160025 | MP/H Rules/Histology: What is the correct histology code for a NUT midline carcinoma? |
Code histology to 8010/3.
NUT carcinoma is identified by the NUTM1 gene rearrangement.
NUT midline carcinomas (NMC) are lethal and morphologically indistinguishable from other poorly diff carcinomas. They are epithelial tumors which can range from undifferentiated carcinomas to carcinomas with prominent squamous differentiation.
A new proposed ICD-O-3 code has been suggested for NUT tumors but it is not yet approved for implementation. Do not use the new code until it is approved for use in the United States.
|
2016 | |
|
|
20160075 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What histology code(s) and MP/H rule applies for a breast resection final diagnosis of "undifferentiated sarcoma associated with a malignant phyllodes tumor and a tumor size of approximately 7 x 6.5 x 4 cm"? (The tumor is primarily sarcoma, with the phyllodes tumor measuring 2.8 cm)? See Discussion. |
Patient has a diagnosis of undifferentiated sarcoma with an associated malignant phyllodes tumor in a single mass. Should this be abstracted as two primaries, one for an undifferentiated sarcoma and the other for a malignant phyllodes tumor? Which MP/H rule applies? |
Abstract a single primary. Based on the information provided, this is a single tumor, and therefore a single primary, Rule M3. Code the histology to malignant phyllodes tumor. According to our expert pathologist consultant, "The presence of a phyllodes tumor component identifies the whole thing as such. Stromal overgrowth/sarcoma is the usual identifier of malignancy in a phyllodes tumor. (If there were no phyllodes component we would be left with undifferentiated sarcoma, but that is not the case here. The diagnosis of malignancy in phyllodes tumor may be difficult/problematic when there is no overt stromal/sarcoma overgrowth as in this case.) As an aside, the behaviors of pure sarcoma and a phyllodes tumor such as we have here are similar, but we would lose the primary diagnosis if we just called this sarcoma." |
2016 |
|
|
20160005 | Reportability--Skin: Is this a reportable skin cancer? See discussion. |
Patient had a skin biopsy and this is the interpretation: NASAL SUPRATIP: INVASIVE BASAL CELL CARCINOMA OF SKIN WITH NEUROENDOCRINE DIFFERENTIATION
NOTE: The deep margin is positive for tumor; peripheral margins negative for tumor. The tumor has a basaloid appearance with focal areas appearing slightly squamoid, and it demonstrates myxoid/mucinous retraction from the stroma. It does not demonstrate peripheral palisading of cells within tumor nests and has nuclear chromatin which suggests neuroendocrine differentiation. Mitotic rate is more brisk than typical basal cell carcinoma as well. The differential diagnosis includes basal cell carcinoma with or without neuroendocrine differentiation, basal cell carcinoma with squamous differentiation, basaloid squamous cell carcinoma, Merkel cell carcinoma and metastatic small cell carcinoma. The tumor is further characterized per immunostains x 9 (controls work well). Tumor cells are positive for Ber EP4 and p63; focally positive for Chromagranin; while negative for EMA, CK20, CK7, TTF-1, CD56 and Synaptophysin. Overall, the staining pattern supports basal cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation. |
Basal cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation of the skin is not reportable to SEER.
In this case, the pathologist discussed several possible options, and determined that the final diagnosis is basal cell ca with neuroendocrine diff based at least partially on the immunostains. |
2016 |
|
|
20160007 | Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: If the diagnosis is a single primary involving both breasts, do we code 41 Surgery Primary site with 1 in Surgery Other site, or code 76 Surgery Primary site with 0 in Surgery Other site? See discussion. |
In Appendix C- Breast (SEER Manual 2015) it states under the codes for TOTAL MASTECTOMY (Codes 40-49, 75): For single primaries only, code removal of involved contralateral breast under the data item Surgical Procedure/Other Site (NAACCR Item # 1294). [SEER Note: Example of single primary with removal of involved contralateral breast--Inflammatory carcinoma involving both breasts. Bilateral simple mastectomies. Code Surgery of Primary Site 41 and code Surgical Procedure of Other Site 1.] HOWEVER, underneath that it states code 76 is used for: 76 Bilateral mastectomy for a single tumor involving both breasts, as for bilateral inflammatory carcinoma. So |
Assign code 41 with 1 in surgery other site for simple mastectomy. Assign code 76 with 0 in surgery other site for a more extensive mastectomy. |
2016 |
An official website of the United States government
