Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is pseudotumor cerebri reportable?
Pseudotumor cerebri is not reportable. It is not a neoplasm. The pressure inside the skull is increased and the brain is affected in a way that appears to be a tumor, but it is not a tumor.
Grade--Bladder: Do you use the grade stated on the pathology report for coding the grade/differentiation field for bladder and renal pelvis field? See discussion.
Please confirm correct coding for grade for papillary urothelial carcinoma of the bladder/renal pelvis and urothelial carcinoma of the bladder/renal pelvis. SEER Manual 2014 and 2015 state: "Do not use these tables to code grade for any other groups including WHO (CNS tumors), WHO/ISUP (bladder, renal pelvis), or FIGO (female gynecologic sites) grades." They also state "In transitional cell carcinoma for bladder, the terminology high grade TCC and low grade TCC are coded in the two-grade system" in the Grade section. These statements are not included in SEER Manuals prior to 2014.
Use the grade stated on the pathology report to code grade/differentiation for bladder and renal pelvis field unless the grade is stated to be WHO/ISUP grade.
Grade--Bladder: How is Grade coded for the following cases diagnosed 1/1/2014 and later? See Discussion.
1) Low grade urothelial carcinoma, invasive carcinoma not identified (8120/2)
2) Papillary urothelial carcinoma, high grade, no evidence of invasion (8130/2)
The rules for coding Bladder Grade appear to have changed over time. SPCM 2013 Appendix C instructions state that Grade should be coded to 9 for urothelial carcinoma in situ (8120/2) and to 1 or 3 for non-invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma (8130/2).
When the grade instructions were removed from Appendix C in 2014, these site specific instructions for in situ bladder cases were no longer included. Thus the two grade system, found in SPCSM 2014+ Grade/Differentiation Coding Instructions for Solid Tumors, is being used to code grade for both the in situ and invasive urothelial malignancies stated to be "low grade" (code 2) or "high grade" (code 4). See also, SINQ 20150022. Please clarify the current grade instructions for in situ and invasive urothelial carcinomas of the bladder.
Follow the instructions in the 2014+ Grade Coding Instructions to code grade for cases diagnosed 2014 and later, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/grade/ Instruction #4.a. states to code grade for in situ tumors when grade is specified. This instruction applies to bladder cases, as well as other in situ tumors.
MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: Does rule M10 apply in this situation?
L breast biopsy = INVASIVE DUCTAL CARCINOMA
L breast simple mastectomy = 2.0 cm INVASIVE DUCTAL CARCINOMA with an incidental finding of separate 1.0 cm INVASIVE LOBULAR CARCINOMA; pathologist specifically states the tumors are morphologically different. The tumors are both pure Ductal/pure Lobular.
Yes, Breast rule M10 applies. This case is a single primary.
Follow the MP/H rules even though the "pathologist specifically states the tumors are morphologically different" so that situations like this are reported consistenty accross cancer registries, regions, and states for consistent national reporting.
Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is this diagnosis reportable? If this neoplasm originated in the spinal cord, it is reportable, correct?
Specimen is described as a 'spinal cord mass.' The final diagnosis is 'fragments of adipose tissue demonstrating vascular proliferations consistent with angiolipoma. No histologic evidence of malignancy.' The microscopic description says: Sections of the spinal mass reveal bone, cartilage, fibrous tissue and adipose tissue. The adipose tissue demonstrates increased vascularity with thin walled blood vessels seen with islands of delicate fibrous stroma. The histologic findings are compatible with fragments of angiolipoma.
The neoplasm is reportable if it originated in the spinal cord or is intradural (within the spinal dura; spinal nerve roots are intradural). If there is not enough information to determine the exact site of origin, do not report the case.
Reportablility--Breast: Is lobular neoplasia reportable as lobular carcinoma in situ? See Discussion.
According to College of American Pathologists (CAP), lobular neoplasia is also known as lobular carcinoma in situ. In a previous SEER question 20041089, it was stated that they were not the same and should not be reported unless it was a Grade 3. I assume this has changed and we are to report lobular neoplasia as lobular carcinoma in situ, is this correct?
For cases diagnosed 2021 or later
Lobular neoplasia (LN II and LN III) and lobular intraepithelial neoplasia (LIN II and LIN III) are reportable and coded 8520/2.
Reportability/Histology: Would a histology reading "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix be reportable? Since the word "tumor NOS" and "neoplasm NOS" both code to 8000, I would assume they would be interchangeable but just wanted to verify.
According to SINQ 20130027 & 20140002 a "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" of the appendix IS reportable.
"Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix is reportable. According to the WHO classification of Digestive System Tumors, "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix is synonymous with NET. WHO states on page 13 "The term 'neuroendocrine neoplasm' can be used synonymously with 'neuroendocrine tumor.'"
Neuroendocrine "tumor," or NET G1, is listed in the WHO classification as one of the malignant neoplasms of the appendix.
MP/H/Histology--Lung: Would you code a lung primary of "non-small cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation" to non-small cell carcinoma (8046/3) or carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation (8574/3)? See discussion.
The pathology report states "Right mediastinal mass: poorly differentiated non-small cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation." This is the only histologic confirmation of this lung primary that is collected.
Code carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation (8574/3). MP/H rule H7 applies: code the higher ICD-O-3 code. There is non-small cell lung carcinoma (8046/3) and a carcinoma, NOS with neuroendocrine differentiation present (8574/3).
Reportability--Skin: Is this case not reportable if the intranasal polyp is covered with cutaneous epithelium (essentially skin) or, is it reportable as a primary intranasal basal cell carcinoma? I have found one article regarding primary intranasal basal cells, which are described as being "very rare". But, I am not sure whether, in those cases, cutaneous epithelium was found.
FINAL DIAGNOSIS: (A) Nasal cavity, polyp, excision: Sinonasal inflammatory polyp with overlying cutaneous epithelium showing foci of superficial (noninvasive) basal cell carcinoma
Report this case as a basal cell carcinoma, noninvasive, of the nasal cavity, based on the information provided.
The polyp was removed from the nasal cavity (C300) which is a reportable site for basal cell carcinoma.
An official website of the United States government
Home