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: 04/29/2026 10:47 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20210036

Update to current manual/Lymphovascular invasion: Are lymphvascular invasion and lymphvascular space invasion on a pathology report the same thing or do they describe different things?

We confirmed with our expert pathologist consultant that lymphovascular invasion and lymphovascular space invasion are synonymous.

 2021
20210037

Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Thyroid: Is category Thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TI-RADS) 4 (4a/4b) or TI-RADS 5 on imaging diagnostic of thyroid cancer, and if so, can we use the date of the impression on the scan that states either of these categories as the diagnosis date?

Answer revised 3/31/2022

Do not report cases based only on the TI-RADS category. The most recent information from ACR on TI-RADS indicates that neither TI-RADS 4 nor TI-RADS 5 is clearly defined as malignancy. TI-RADS 4 is "moderately suspicious" and TI-RADS 5 is "highly suspicious" but they do not specify what they are suspicious for. We need more information to determine reportability.

 2021
20210008

Solid Tumor Rules (2018, 2021)/Histology--Melanoma: In what situation will Rule H6 be used to code the histology to lentigo maligna melanoma? See Discussion.

Rule H6 states: Code 8742/3 (Lentigo maligna melanoma) when the diagnosis is lentigo maligna melanoma with no other histologic types. However, if the diagnosis was strictly lentigo maligna or lentigo maligna melanoma, the first rule that applies is Rule H1 because lentigo maligna melanoma is a single, specific histologic type and Rule H1 states, Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. Following the current rules, one would never arrive at Rule H6. Should the H Rules be reordered? Or should an example of when one would use Rule H6 be added to clarify when to use this rule?

Solid Tumor rule H6 is the same as MP/H rule H8. We found registrars have problems understanding reportable terminology and the corresponding ICD-O-3 histology code for lentigo maligna melanoma. It is included in H6 to capture cases where the registrar may not stop at H1. We will add another note to H1 instructing users to continue through the rules if the diagnosis is lentigo maligna melanoma.

 2021
20210011

Primary site: Is C720 the correct primary site for a diagnosis of a paraspinal neuroblastoma on autopsy in a nine month old with Noonan syndrome? See Discussion.

Autopsy/Pathology Report (2020) excerpts

External Examination

Nervous System: There is an 8.5 cm mass located in the right thoracic paraspinal area.

Final Anatomic Diagnosis

Clinical History: Paraspinal mass suspicious for neuroblastic tumor (detected by imaging studies)

Nervous System: Right thoracic paraspinal neuroblastoma, poorly differentiated

Assign primary site code C473 for this case based on the information provided (peripheral nerves and autonomic nervous system of thorax).

From our expert pathologist consultant: The origin of neuroblastomas is generally in the adrenal medulla or one of the sympathetic ganglia on either side of the vertebral column (although they have been reported in many other locations given the migration of the neural crest cells embryologically).

 2021
20210019

Reportability/Histology--Cervix: Is a stratified mucin-producing intraepithelial lesion (SMILE) lesion reportable? Is it reportable if it is invasive SMILE? What is the correct histology? See Discussion.

Cervix, loop electrosurgical excision procedure: Cervix at transformation zone with stratified mucin-producing intraepithelial lesion (SMILE). SMILE is present at the ectocervical margin. An immunohistochemical stain* for p16 demonstrates strong, diffuse positivity in the lesional epithelium. A mucicarmine stain is also positive in the lesional epithelium, supporting the diagnosis of SMILE.

Stratified mucin-producing intraepithelial lesion (SMILE) of the cervix is not reportable. SMILE is a variant of adenocarcinoma in situ and is coded 8140/2. In situ neoplasms of the cervix are not reportable. According to the WHO Classification of tumors, p16 is positive and there is a high Ki-67 proliferation index.

If SMILE is stated to be invasive, it is reportable, as any other invasive cervical malignancy would be reportable.

 2021
20210043

Reportability/Histology--Fallopian Tube: Is a diagnosis of serous tubal intraepithelial neoplasm (neoplasia) (STIN) equivalent to serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC)? Does the designation of high or low grade have any effect on potential reportability? See Discussion.

Patient has left salpingo-oophorectomy showing fallopian tube with focal high grade serous intraepithelial neoplasm.

In reviewing some journal articles, the term STIN is being used to describe both STIC and serous tubal intraepithelial lesion (STIL). We will likely continue to see this term used, so it would be nice to have some clarity.

Serous tubal intraepithelial neoplasm (neoplasia) (STIN) is not equivalent to serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC). Report STIN only when stated to be high grade. STIC is reportable. Do not report STIL.

According to our expert pathologist consultant, STIL and STIN are broad descriptive terms that reflect proliferation of epithelial cells with varying degrees of atypia, with the most developed, STIC, reflecting convincing neoplastic change.

 2021
20210067

First Course Treatment/Neoadjuvant Treatment:  How is Neoadjuvant Therapy--Clinical Response (NAACCR #1633) coded if a physician documents excellent response to treatment and nothing further?

Clarify the statement of "excellent" with the managing physician if possible. If no further information can be obtained, assign code 8 in Neoadjuvant Therapy–Clinical Response and document the details in text fields.

 2021
20210002

Multiple Primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned for a patient diagnosed with therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome (t-MDS) (9920/3) in 2015 followed by a 2020 diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome, NOS (MDS, NOS) (9989/3)? See Discussion.

Patient has a history of B-cell lymphoma with multimodality treatment in 2002. Lab work in 2015 showed multilineage dysplasia leading to a diagnosis of therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome. Patient presents in 2020 for a bone marrow biopsy now showing low-grade MDS. The MDS appears to have the same multilineage dysplasia previously identified.

MDS, NOS is not listed in the Heme DB as a possible transformation of t-MDS, nor is it listed as a Same Primary for t-MDS. Likewise, t-MDS is not listed as a more specific myelodysplastic syndrome, a transformation of MDS NOS, or a Same Primary as MDS, NOS.

The first M rule that applies to this case is M15, and the Multiple Primaries Calculator indicates that the MDS, NOS should be a new primary.

Abstract separate primaries using Rule M15 of the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms (Heme) Manual. The Heme Database states: Excluded from this category are progression of myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) and evolution of primary MDS or primary MDS/MPN to acute myeloid leukemia (AML); in each of these latter cases evolution to AML is part of the natural history of the primary disease and it may be impossible to distinguish natural progression from therapy-related changes. There is no indication of transformation.

 2021
20210015

Solid Tumor Rules (2007/2021)/Multiple Primaries--Anus: Have the disease free interval criteria been met for the following case scenario. A patient was diagnosed with anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) III in 7/2018 that was treated with local tumor destruction, followed by Pap smears and biopsies that prove AIN I or AIN II through 2020, before being diagnosed with a reportable AIN II or AIN III in 2021. See Discussion.

Since AIN I is not reportable and AIN II is not reportable until 2021, we are not sure if we can say the patient was disease free because there was no intervening reportable tumor (AIN III), or was never disease free because there was evidence of related disease (lower grade dysplasia).

The 2021 AIN III is not a new primary. According to our GI pathology expert, findings of AIN I and/or AIN II following a diagnosis of AIN III indicates the patient was never NED and indicates persistent disease.

.

 2021
20210020

Behavior--Breast: Should the behavior change to /3, invasive, to get a case to clear edits? The histology of this breast case is ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 8500/2. Lymph nodes are positive for micro-mets (0.2 mm-2 mm). SEER Summary Stage: 3, regional lymph nodes positive. This creates an edit for SEER Summary Stage due to the behavior code of /2, in situ.

Code the behavior to /3, not just to pass edits, but because this is an invasive case based on the positive lymph nodes.

For most cases, behavior is based on the primary tumor, but in situations like this where an invasive component cannot be found and there are positive lymph nodes, the /3 behavior is assigned based on the positive lymph nodes.

 2021