Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20210078 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018/2021)/Multiple Primaries--Skin Cancer: How many primaries are assigned for sebaceous carcinomas using the Solid Tumor/Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules? Does this scenario represent eight separate primaries? See Discussion. |
Details 4/15/2018: Right abdominal wall mass excision: infiltrating sebaceous carcinoma. Noted to have a history of Muir-Torre/Lynch syndrome. 1/21/2019: Two left upper back mass excisions and two lower back (laterality not specified) mass excisions: infiltrating sebaceous carcinomas 8/7/2019: Excision of multiple sebaceous carcinomas from the right posterior back, left posterior thigh, left anterior abdominal wall, left anterior thigh, right scrotum, right lower abdominal fold, all positive for sebaceous carcinoma on pathology report 9/30/2020: Right gluteal mass, left gluteal mass, back (NOS) excisions: sebaceous carcinomas. 10/14/2020: Right back excision: sebaceous carcinoma. Op note: History of Lynch syndrome with multiple sebaceous carcinomas, recurrent back mass, site of prior mass resection. 10/18/2021: Right thigh excision: sebaceous carcinoma Proposed primaries using MP/H Other Sites Rules #1: 4/15/2018: C445-1 #2: 1/21/2019: C445-2, separate from #1 per M8, same as 1/21/19 C445-9 per M18 #3: 8/7/2019: C445-1, separate from #1 per M10, separate from #2 per M8 #4: 8/7/2019: C447-2, separate from #1 & #3 per M8, separate from #2 per M12 #5: 8/7/2019: C632, separate from #1 per M10, separate from #2-#4 per M11 #6: 9/30/2020: C445-2, separate from #1 & #3 per M8, separate from #2, #4 & #5 per M10 #7: 9/30/2020: C445-1, separate from #2, #4 & #6 per M8, separate from #1, #3 & #5 per M10; I do not think the back, NOS (C445-9) is a new primary per M18. #8: 10/18/2021: C447-1, separate from #2, #4 & #6 per M8, separate from #1, #3, #5 & #7 per M10 |
Assign the number of primaries following the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules. Based on sites, laterality and or timing there are 8 primaries. This is similar to SINQ 20061112 that advised to follow the Multiple Primaries/Histology rules for sebaceous carcinoma. According to the WHO Classification of Skin Tumors, 5th edition, there is a 30-40% risk of local tumor recurrence, and 20-25% risk of distant metastasis. In only one instance did a physician refer this as a recurrence in the available notes. |
2021 |
|
|
20210044 | Diagnostic Confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Plasma Cell Myeloma: Can serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP) be used as a definitive diagnostic method in the absence of a bone marrow biopsy? Is it appropriate to assign code 5 (Positive laboratory test/marker study) if there is no histological confirmation? See Discussion. |
Patient was diagnosed with lambda myeloma based on the M spike found on serum protein electrophoresis. A bone marrow biopsy was performed, but it was an insufficient sample. SPEP is not listed in the Hematopoietic Database as a lab test that can be used as a definitive diagnostic method. Since the physician did base the diagnosis on the SPEP result, would it be appropriate to assign code 5 (Positive laboratory test/marker study) since there was no histological confirmation? Under code 5, the Hematopoietic Manual states: Laboratory tests are listed under Definitive Diagnostic Methods in the Hematopoietic Database. |
Assign code 5 in Diagnostic Confirmation. We consulted with an expert hematopathologist who stated that SPEP would qualify for a diagnostic confirmation code of 5. He also stated that normally a SPEP is followed by a bone marrow biopsy. SPEP has been added to the Definitive Diagnostic Methods for plasma cell myeloma (9732/3). |
2021 |
|
|
20210034 | Reportability/Histology--Endometrium: Is endometrial hyperplasia with atypia equivalent to atypical hyperplasia of the endometrium (8380/2) and thus reportable? |
Endometrial hyperplasia with atypia is equivalent to atypical hyperplasia of the endometrium (8380/2) and thus reportable for cases diagnosed 2021 and later. Our expert pathologist consultant confirmed this for us. |
2021 | |
|
|
20210069 | EOD 2018/Summary Stage 2018--Intrahepatic Bile Duct: How should Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor (PT) be coded for invasion of or into (but not through) the visceral peritoneum for an intrahepatic bile duct primary? See Discussion. |
Invasion of the visceral peritoneum is Regional (code 2) in Summary Stage. EOD PT code 500 is for invasion BEYOND the visceral peritoneum into adjacent connective tissues, and maps to T3 and Regional Summary Stage, but that code seems too extensive. All lower EOD codes map to Localized Summary Stage. |
Assign code 500 for EOD Primary Tumor for now. We have confirmed with AJCC that "invasion of" but not "through" the visceral peritoneum maps to a T2 and not T3. Involvement of the visceral peritoneum for Summary Stage is Regional and does not make a distinction between "invasion of" or "invasion through." Any involvement of the visceral peritoneum is regional. To correct this situation would require a new code, which would derive a T2/RE. That code will be added to the updates for 2023. Code 500 will derive the appropriate Summary Stage of 2 (Regional). We are aware that this will derive the incorrect T; however, there is no work around at this time that will derive the correct T and Summary Stage, so we are defaulting to deriving the correct Summary Stage. |
2021 |
|
|
20210026 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Lymphoma: Is a case initially submitted as C772 with histology coded 9591/3 (lymphoma, NOS) with a second case submitted as C162 with histology coded 9699/3 (extranodal marginal zone lymphoma of mucosal-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT lymphoma) a single primary or multiple primaries? See Discussion. |
The following cases were submitted to the central registry as separate primaries. First case submitted as C772 with histology coded 9591/3 (Lymphoma, NOS). Second case submitted as C162 with histology coded 9699/3 (MALT Lymphoma). Sequence 01 - 5/2016, Excisional biopsy pancreatic tail lymph node: suspicious for malignant B-cell lymphoma. No treatment recommended or administered. Sequence 02 - 2/2019, Stomach biopsy: MALT Lymphoma. Unknown if treatment was recommended or administered. Biopsy was only at this facility. Using the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Multiple Primaries/Histology rules, Rule M7 makes this a single primary. Note 4 instructs to change the histology of the initial abstract to the more specific histology (9699/3). If this is done, they would be multiple primaries per the exception within Rule M2. Should the histology on sequence 01 be changed to the MALT lymphoma and the cases would be multiple primaries or is this a single primary? |
Abstract two primaries and assign Primary 1: C772, 9699/3 Primary 2: C162, 9699/3 Per Rule M7, you would change the first case to histology 9699/3 based on Note 4 under Rule M7, Note 4: Change the histology code on the original abstract to the more specific histology when the original diagnosis is in your registry database. Use previous editions of ICD-O (i.e., ICD-O-1, ICD-O-2) or the Hematopoietic Database to assign the code applicable to the year of diagnosis for the more specific histology. Per Rule M2 this would be the same primary based on both being the same histology; however, there is an exception for MALT lymphomas (9699/3), which states: Abstract multiple primaries when a nodal MALT (C770-779, 9699/3) occurs before or after an extranodal MALT (all other sites, 9699/3). |
2021 |
|
|
20210040 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018, 2021)/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded for a diagnosis ofmixed mucinous carcinoma? See Discussion. |
Patient was diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma with mucinous features in February 2021, left breast biopsies at 2:00 (3 cm from nipple) and 3:00 (8 cm from nipple) positions. Intraductal component was absent in those specimens. Subsequent left breast total mastectomy in March 2021, provided a final diagnosis of multifocal mixed mucinous carcinoma, grade 1, 27 and 8 mm and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), low to intermediate grade, with focal mucinous features. The Staging Summary lists Histologic Type as mixed mucinous carcinomafor both foci of invasive carcinoma. DCIS is also noted as present negative for extensive intraductal component. There does not appear to be a clear instruction or code for this histology. As a central registry, we are unable to follow-up with the pathologist regarding this diagnosis. Just to be clear, there are 2 foci of invasive mixed mucinous carcinoma in this case measuring 27 mm and 8 mm. The DCIS component measured 56 mm. |
If the DCIS is separate from the mucinous, apply the breast M rules and abstract TWO primaries per M14. Since all we know of the “mixed mucinous” is there is mucinous present, code 8480/3. |
2021 |
|
|
20210046 | Reportability--Skin: Is dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) with fibrosarcomatous transformation synonymous with dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans, fibrosarcomatous, and therefore reportable for diagnosis year 2021 and forward? See Discussion. |
Patient has a 2021 skin excision showing an atypical spindle cell neoplasm, most consistent with dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) with fibrosarcomatous transformation. Per the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table, DFSP, NOS has a behavior code of /1, and DFSP, fibrosarcomatous has a behavior code of /3. There is no code listed for DFSP with fibrosarcomatous transformation. Transformation is not included as a term that can/cannot be used for the Other Sites Schema, but this type of DFSP is often described as DFSP with fibrosarcomatous transformation. How do we code DFSP when transformation is used to describe fibrosarcomatous? |
Report DFSP with fibrosarcomatous transformation as it is synonymous with fibrosarcomatous DFSP (8832/3). According to the WHO Classification of Skin Tumors, 4th edition, fibrosarcomatous DFSP is a variant of DFSP and that fibrosarcomatous transformation is seen in approximately 10% of DFSP cases. It is characterized by an often abrupt transition of DFSP. |
2021 |
|
|
20210024 | Primary Site--Vulva: What is the primary site of patient with an excision of a left vulvar cystic mass showing focal mammary-type ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) on 11/06/2020? See Discussion. |
Final Pathologic Diagnosis: Vulvar cyst, excision: Focal mammary-type ductal carcinoma in situ, intermediate grade, arising within cystically dilated duct (See Comment) Size of DCIS: 0.7 CM. Margins: Negative. Comment Sections demonstrate a cystically dilated duct. Focally, at the periphery of the duct, there is a neoplastic monomorphic proliferation of ductal cells with intermediate grade nuclei. No associated necrosis is identified. Immunostains for GATA-3 and estrogen receptor are strongly positive within the neoplastic cells, supporting origin from mammary-like epithelium. Immunostain for p63 demonstrates preservation of a basal layer around the dilated duct, including the region involved by DCIS. Immunostain for cytokeratin 5/6 shows loss of expression within the DCIS. No stromal invasion is identified. The cyst appears to be completely excised. 12/01/2020 post op visit with surgeon: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the left vulva in an excised cystic lesion. PLAN: I reviewed the pathologic findings from the excision of the left vulvar cyst. This appears to be a cystic lesion in the mammary line with focal DCIS. It was excised completely with negative margins. It would not warrant any additional treatment except expectant management. |
Code the primary site to vulva. Use text fields to record the details. According to the WHO classification, several types of primary vulvar mammary-like carcinoma have been reported. It is rare and is thought to arise from specialized anogenital mammary-like glands within the vulva. It does not arise from ectopic breast tissue and is does not represent metastatic breast carcinoma. |
2021 |
|
|
20210068 | Mets at Diagnosis Fields/Primary Site--Lymph Nodes: How are the Mets at Diagnosis fields coded when the metastatic adenocarcinoma involves only one lymph node area and the primary site is unknown? See Discussion. |
In 2018, patient has lymph node metastasis confined to left retroperitoneal area; core biopsy was done which showed metastatic adenocarcinoma, unknown primary site. There are no other sites of disease found. Should I code Mets at Diagnosis--Distant Lymph Node(s) as 1, and the others such as bone and lung as 0? |
In a situation like this with one area of metastatic involvement and an unknown primary, if there is no further information, we advise that the metastasis are "regional" until/unless proven otherwise. With this in mind, code the Mets at Diagnosis fields as 0, including the Mets at Diagnosis--Distant Lymph Node(s). This case should continue to be worked up to identify the primary site. If a primary site is identified later, update the abstract accordingly. In the meantime, use text fields to describe the situation. |
2021 |
|
|
20210077 | First Course Therapy/Neoadjuvant Treatment: How are Neoadjuvant Therapy--Clinical Response and Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect coded when the neoadjuvant therapy was not completed? Does the entire course of neoadjuvant therapy need to be completed before we can code these fields? See Discussion. |
Example: The neoadjuvant therapy was started, the patient progressed, the treatment plan was altered, and a new course of systemic therapy was started; surgery was cancelled. 01/25/21 Bile duct brushing: Malignant cells present, adenocarcinoma 01/26/21 Surgical oncology consult: Currently unresectable; recommend neoadjuvant chemo 02/22/21-3/29/21 Neoadjuvant Gemzar & Abraxane, two cycles, discontinued due to disease progression 04/17/21 Surgical oncology re-eval: CT positive for disease progression, need to change Rx 04/26/21 Second change of treatment due to progression: Irinotecan, Oxaliplatin, and 5FU 07/16/21 Surgical oncology re-eval: Unresectable, advise 4-6 months of chemo followed by radiation |
Assign code 3 (Progressive disease (PD)(per managing/treating physician statement) for Neoadjuvant Treatment--Clinical Response and code 7 (Neoadjuvant therapy completed and planned surgical resection not performed) for Neoadjuvant Treatment--Treatment Effect. These are the best choices under the circumstances. Use text fields to record the details. |
2021 |
An official website of the United States government
