Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20180047 | Reportability--Kidney: Is a hybrid oncocytic tumor reportable? See Discussion. |
10/27/2017 partial nephrectomy final path diagnosis: renal oncocytic neoplasm, favor hybrid oncocytic tumor. Comment: |
Do not report renal HTOC. According to our expert pathologist consultant, "the genetic studies seem to indicate that the chromosomal changes of chromophobe renal carcinoma are not found in the hybrid tumors." |
2018 |
|
|
20180014 | Reportability/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumor of the cerebrum reportable, and if so, is the histology coded as 9492/0? See Discussion. |
Patient diagnosed with multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumor of the cerebrum. My research shows: Multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumor of the cerebrum is a recently reported benign, mixed glial neuronal lesion that is included in the 2016 updated World Health Organization classification of brain neoplasms as a unique cytoarchitectural pattern of gangliocytoma. There is no code in ICD-O-3 for it, so do I report it and use 9492/0 or not ? |
Do not report multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumor of the cerebrum. At this time, WHO is undecided about whether this is a neoplastic or a hamartomatous/malformative process. If WHO makes a determination that this is a neoplastic process, we will update reportability instructions and ICD-O-3 guidelines for registrars. |
2018 |
|
|
20180021 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Corpus uteri: What is the correct histology code for "Mesophrenic-like adenocarcinoma" of the corpus uteri?" See Discussion. |
The article I read (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=28984674) makes the distinction between mesophrenic adenocarcinoma and mesophrenic-like adenocarcinoma. The authors propose the term mesonephric-like Mullerian adenocarcinoma. So would this be coded as Mullerian adenocarcinoma? |
Assign code 9110/3, mesonephric adenocarcinoma. These tumors commonly arise in the cervical wall and more commonly involve the lower uterine segment than do other cervical adenocarcinomas. |
2018 |
|
|
20190032 | Summary Stage 2018--Lung: Are ground-glass lung nodules coded as distant for Summary Stage? See Discussion. |
Chest x-ray: Multifocal pneumonia in left lung; possibility of masses in left lung not excluded. Chest CT: 4 large ground-glass masses in LUL (largest 46mm); beginning of Tree-In-Bud appearance in LUL; 2 small ground-glass nodules in right lung. Lung LUL biopsy: Adenocarcinoma, Solid Predominant. No further information as patient did not want to discuss treatment options. Per the AJCC book and CAnswer Forum, multifocal classification should be applied equally whether the lesions are in the same lobe OR in different ipsilateral lobes OR contralateral lobes, cT2b(m), cN0, cM0. |
Do not assume that ground glass presentation is consistent with a neoplasm. There are numerous causes of a ground glass lung condition such as sarcoidosis or pulmonary fibrosis. A ground glass lung opacity may also be observed in conditions such as alveolar proteinosis, desquamative pneumonitis, hypersensitive pneumonitis, and drug-induced or radiation-induced lung disease. If an area of ground glass opacity persists in the lung, it is usually classified as an adenocarcinoma, a classification that ranges from premalignant lesions to invasive disease. This is in line with AJCC that states to stage based on the largest tumor determined to be positive for cancer. To Summary Stage the case example provided, ignore the lesions in the contralateral lung (do not assume that they are malignant). There are multiple lesions in the left lung, but once again, do not assume that those not biopsied are malignant. This leaves us with the lesion confirmed to be malignant, making this a Localized (code 1) tumor. |
2019 |
|
|
20190006 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: Please confirm Multiple Primaries/Histology Breast Rule M8 applies in this 2017 case. The surgical resection is >60 days past the biopsy date but is it possible treatment plans for breast could span >60 days and this is one primary? See Discussion. |
7/25/17 Part A: Left breast at 8:00, 5 CFN: Specimen type: Stereotactic biopsy. Tumor type: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), cribriform type. Tumor size: The largest focus of DCIS measures 1 mm in greatest dimension as measured on the slide. Nuclear grade: 2 (Intermediate grade). Microcalcifications: Present. Other findings: Stromal fibrosis, microcalcification and fat necrosis. 11/1/17 A. Sentinel lymph node, left: One lymph node, negative for metastatic tumor on three levels of routine H\T\E and pan cytokeratin immunohistochemical stains. B. Left breast: Procedure: Total mastectomy with skin and nipple. Specimen Laterality: Left. Lymph Node Sampling: Yes, portion A. Specimen Integrity: Intact. Histologic Type: Extensive ductal carcinoma in situ and one focus of Invasive ductal carcinoma with mucinous features. Histologic Grade (Nottingham Histologic Score): Glandular Differentiation: Score 3 Nuclear Grade: Score 2. Mitotic Count: Score 1. Total Nottingham score 6 (grade 2, moderately differentiated). Tumor Size: 3.3 x 2 mm (0.33 x 0.2 cm) measured on slide (B3). Tumor Site: Lower inner quadrant of left breast. Tumor Focality: Unifocal. Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS): Present, cribriform, solid and micropapillary types with focal necrosis and calcifications. Size of DCIS: Number of blocks examined: Thirty (30). Number of blocks with DCIS: Thirteen (13). Lobular Carcinoma In Situ (LCIS): Not identified, Lymphovascular Invasion: Present. Perineural Invasion: Not identified. Other Findings: Changes consistent with previous biopsy site. Cysts, foci of atypical ductal hyperplasia, focal ductal hyperplasia, adenosis, stromal fibrosis and microcalcifications. Skin (epidermis): Uninvolved. Nipple: Uninvolved. Margins: 1 mm from DCIS to the closest deep margin (slide B12). At least 10 mm (1 cm) from invasive carcinoma to deep margin. Estrogen receptor (ER, clone 1D5) by immunohistochemistry performed on this material: Positive (invasive and in situ carcinoma), high intensity, in greater than 95% of carcinoma cells. Progesterone receptor (PR, clone 16) by immunohistochemistry performed on this material: Positive (invasive and in situ carcinoma), moderate intensity in about 80% of the carcinoma cells. Her 2 by FISH performed on this material: Pending, an addendum to follow. Pathologic staging: pT1aN0(sn)MX (AJCC 7th edition). Dictated by: (Pathologist), MD Intradepartmental review. |
Abstract a single breast primary. Apply MP/H Rule M3 as this is a single tumor identified in the biopsy at 8 o'clock and at the same location in the mastectomy specimen. Code the behavior as invasive according to rule H9. The first course of therapy ends when the documented treatment plan is completed, no matter how long, unless there is progression, recurrence, or treatment failure. |
2019 |
|
|
20190108 | Primary site--Breast: how is subsite coded for a breast cancer when it is described as central portion between 1-3:00 or central portion at 12:00? |
See the SEER coding guidelines for breast, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2018/AppendixC/Coding_Guidelines_Breast_2018.pdf Generally, codes C502 - C505 are preferred over C501. C501 would be preferred over C508. Apply these general guidelines when there is no other way to determine the subsite using the available medical documentation. Table 1, Primary Site codes, in the breast solid tumor rules also provide helpful information for coding site. |
2019 | |
|
|
20190066 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Breast: How is the histology coded for a metastatic carcinoma, consistent with primary breast carcinoma, when no other pathology information is available? See Discussion. |
The 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules Equivalent Terms and Definitions - Changes from 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules states: Mammary carcinoma is a synonym for carcinoma no special type (NST)/duct carcinoma not otherwise specified (NOS) 8500. It will no longer be coded as carcinoma NOS 8010. Should metastatic carcinomas of breast origin be 8500, or is code 8010 (carcinoma NOS) more applicable because histology coding from metastatic sites is not as reliable? |
Code as 8500/3 as it is the only tissue available for this carcinoma associated with a breast primary. Breast carcinoma NST/NOS is now coded as 8500. |
2019 |
|
|
20190058 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Cervix Uteri: What is the histology code and what H Rule applies for a diagnosis of papillary squamotransitional cell carcinoma of the cervix? See Discussion. |
It appears that the first Other Sites applicable rule is H16 (and Table 2) instructing the use of histology code 8323 (mixed cell adenocarcinoma). However, this really is not an adenocarcinoma tumor but is a mixed squamous and transitional cell carcinoma. The 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology Update Table provides a new term for a but does not indicate whether that new term would also include a papillary squamotransitional cell carcinoma of the cervix. |
Code papillary squamotransitional cell carcinoma (PSCC) as 8120/3 using the 2018 Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Rule H11. PSCC is a distinctive subcategory of squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix. WHO Classification of Tumors of Female Reproductive Organs say that squamotransitional cell tumors show papillary architecture with fibrovascular cores lines by multilayered atypical epithelium. |
2019 |
|
|
20190053 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Brain and CNS: What is the histology code for a central nervous system (CNS) Ewing sarcoma family tumor with CIC alteration of the right parietal lobe? See Discussion. |
Table 3 (Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtypes/Variants) lists Ewing sarcoma as a synonym for Peripheral primitive neuroectodermal tumor 9364. Presumably, this is to be used for the reportable malignant peripheral nerve tumors when diagnosed as pPNET or Ewing sarcoma. However, this patient has a type of central (or CNS) primitive neuroectodermal tumor (histology 9473). Table 3 does not list central primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET or CPNET) as a valid histology for CNS tumors. While Table 3 does not list all the possible histologies for the CNS, it currently is not clear how one would arrive at the histology code for a CNS Ewing sarcoma family tumor with CIC alteration, as this is recognized as a new entity for primitive neuroectodermal tumors of the CNS (i.e., PNET, histology 9473) per multiple journal articles. Ewing sarcoma family tumors include both peripheral PNET and central PNET tumors, but to code this histology as a peripheral PNET (9364) in this case seems incorrect when the primary tumor is stated to be of central nervous system origin, not peripheral nervous system origin. |
Code as 9364/3. WHO Classification of Tumors of the CNS, 4th edition, refers to Ewing sarcoma/peripheral primitive neuroectodermal tumor as a tumor of neuroectodermal origin involving the CNS either as a primary dural neoplasm or by direct extension from contiguous bone or soft tissues (such as skull, vertebra, or paraspinal soft tissue). |
2019 |
|
|
20190011 | Reportability--Skin: Is an atypical smooth muscle cell proliferation of the skin reportable? See Discussion. |
Example: Patient has left thigh skin excision with final diagnosis of atypical smooth muscle cell proliferation, inked peripheral margin is involved and inked deep margin is free of disease in the sections examined. See Comment. Diagnosis comment states: The terminology regarding this lesion is controversial. Lesions with identical features are designated as leiomyosarcoma in the dermatopathology literature, whereas, the preferred classification in the soft tissue pathology is atypical intradermal smooth muscle neoplasm. Although the lesion appears predominantly dermal based, since the margin is involved, the lesion cannot be entirely evaluated, and therefore the final designation is deferred to the findings in the excisional specimen. (This slide was read by bone and soft tissue pathologist.) There has been no excision of this tumor and, as a central registry, we have no access to the pathologist for clarification. Is this skin case reportable based on the dermatopathology interpretation when further documentation is not available? |
Since you do not have the option of checking with the pathologist and no further information is available, do not report this case. The diagnosis is atypical smooth muscle cell proliferation of the skin, which is not reportable. Registrars with access to the pathologist should querry the pathologist for clarification in this situation. |
2019 |
An official website of the United States government
