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: 12/21/2025 18:37 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20081113

Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is a cavernoma reportable as a benign brain tumor? See Discussion.

Cavernous hemangiomas are typically described as vascular malformations in the brain. Per a search of the literature, cavernoma, cavernous hemangioma and cavernous malformation are all synonymous. There is some controversy as to whether cavernomas are vascular malformations or tumors. Cavernous hemangioma (9121/0) has been assigned a code in the ICD-O-3. The other terms are not even listed. Benign brain guidelines indicate that named tumors that have been assigned an ICD-O-3 code are reportable. Would we report a lesion that is labeled cavernous hemangioma but not one that is labeled carvernoma? Are cavernous malformations of the brain to be reported as benign brain tumors? The MP/H guidelines for benign brain tumors do not include blood vessel tumors in chart 1.

Are the following tumors reportable? If so, what is the primary site?

Example 1: Patient admitted for resection. Clinical diagnosis is left temporal cavernous hemangioma. Path diagnosis is cerebral cortex and white matter showing cavernoma.

Example 2: Patient admitted for resection with clinical diagnosis of parietal cavernous hemangioma. Path shows A-V malformation.

Example 3: Patient had T4 spinal tumor removed. Path showed cavernous angioma.

Reference: I&R 18109 and 23460

Cavernoma is a reportable benign brain tumor. According to our pathologist consultant, cavernoma is synonymous with cavernous hemangioma.

Examples

1. Reportable. Primary site - C710 [cerebrum]

2. Not reportable. Path dx disproves clinical diagnosis.

3. Not reportable. Not a brain tumor.

 2008
20140072

Reportability--Head & Neck: Would this be reportable and if so what histology would be coded? Soft tissue mass left cheek excision reveals Carcinoma Ex Pleomorphic Adenoma Non-Invasive with focal vascular invasion. Margins clear.

Carcinoma ex pleomorphic adenoma (Ca-ex-PA) is reportable. Assign 8941/3. The WHO classification of head and neck tumors defines Ca-ex-PA as an epithelial malignancy arising in a benign pleomorphic adenoma. Most of these originate in the parotid gland but can also arise in other salivary glands.

2014
20210018

Reportability/Histology--Head & Neck: Is carcinoma cuniculatum of the hard palate diagnosed in 2017 reportable? Was this rare variant of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) missed in Casefinding? If reportable, what is the histology code?

Carcinoma cuniculatum of the hard palate is reportable. Code to SCC, NOS (8070/3). Use text fields to record the details.

While WHO recognizes carcinoma cuniculatum to be a new variant of oral cancer, it has not proposed a new ICD-O code for this neoplasm.

 2021
20100050

Reportability--Colon: Would a carcinoid tumor, NOS, of the appendix with perineural or angiolymphatic invasion be reportable if there is no mention of malignancy in the pathology report?

Carcinoid, NOS, of the appendix diagnosed in 2015 or later is reportable.

For cases diagnosed prior to 2015

Carcinoids of the appendix are reportable when they meet any of the following conditions.

  • The pathologist designates the carcinoid as malignant

  • Regional lymph nodes are positive for MALIGNANT carcinoid (not reportable if lymph nodes are reported to be involved with benign carcinoid disease)

  • There are discontinuous metastatic implants or involvement

    • Note that the implants/involvement must be designated as malignant. Many benign tumors will spawn implants that are also benign. If implants are benign, this is not a reportable tumor.

    		2010
    		20170005

    Reportability/Histology--Testis: Is neoplasm consistent with carcinoid type of monodermal teratoma reportable as a teratoma, NOS, and if yes, what is the histology code?

    Carcinoid type of monodermal teratoma or well differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (carcinoid), monodermal teratoma of the testis is reportable. Assign 8240/3 according to the WHO classification for this neoplasm.

    		 2017
    		20160030

    Reportability--Carcinoid: Is a diagnosis of carcinoid heart disease, based solely on clinical information and no pathology, reportable?

    Carcinoid heart disease is not reportable but this diagnosis indicates that the patient likely has a carcinoid tumor which may be reportable. Obtain further information.

    		2016
    		20190102

    Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: What is the histology code of an external ear lesion when the dermatopathology report is the only available information (follow-up with the physician or pathologist is not possible) and the final diagnosis is malignant spindle cell neoplasm, most consistent with atypical fibroxanthoma? See Discussion.

    There are two histologies provided in the final diagnosis, malignant spindle cell neoplasm (8004/3) and atypical fibroxanthoma (8830/3). There is a definitive diagnosis of the non-specific histology, but the more specific histology is only described using ambiguous terminology.

    The external ear (C442) is included in the Head and Neck schema for diagnosis year 2018 and later. The Head and Neck Histology Rules indicate ambiguous terminology cannot be used to code a more specific histology. So ignoring the atypical fibroxanthoma, because it is modified by ambiguous terminology, we are left with a non-reportable site and histology combination (C442, 8004/3).

    Diagnoses of malignant atypical fibroxanthomas are regularly diagnosed using the syntax above in our area. Follow-up with the physician or pathologist is generally not possible as these cases are received from dermatopathology clinics only. The pathology report is the only information that will be received. If the reportable diagnosis of malignant atypical fibroxanthoma is ignored per the current Solid Tumor Rules, incidence cases will be lost.

    By definition, atypical fibroxanthoma (AFX) is a diagnosis of exclusion. Markers of specific differentiation must be negative. As written in your example, neither histology is reportable for skin. If possible, clarify the behavior of the AFX (8830/1) with the pathologist to determine reportability of the case.

    		 2019
    		20190029

    Reportability--Testis: Is demarcated scar tissue with atrophic seminiferous tubules and cortical bone consistent with burnt-out germ cell tumor and no evidence of germ cell neoplasia in situ (GCNIS) reportable? See Discussion.

    The patient is a 34 year old who presented with testicular pain radiating into the abdomen approximately 1 month before orchiectomy in 2018. CT abdomen/pelvis: Multiple focal sclerotic bone lesions. Given the lack of change from July 2014, these are likely benign bone islands. No adenopathy mentioned. He has no prior history of germ cell tumor nor any surgery for any tumor/cancer before this. Pathology: Testis, left, radical orchiectomy: - Demarcated scar tissue (1.3 cm), with atrophic seminiferous tubules and cortical bone consistent with burnt-out germ cell tumor. No evidence of germ cell neoplasia in situ (GCNIS). - Margins are unremarkable.

    Burnt-out germ cell tumor (9080/1) is not reportable. According to WHO Classification of Urinary System and Male Genital Organ, regressed germ cell tumors are germ cell tumors that have undergone partial or complete regression leaving a generally well-delineated nodular focus of scar or fibrosis in the testis.

    		 2019
    		20170006

    Diagnostic confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms (Lymphoma): To code "3" in Diagnostic Confirmation, does the genetic testing need to confirm a specific histology or is it enough that is simply rules out others? See Discussion.

    For example, pathology states: Right axillary lymph node, excision: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (see note). COMMENT: FISH studies were performed that were negative for BCL-6, c-Myc/IgH, CCND1/IgH and IgH/BCl-2 gene rearrangement, ruling out the most common forms of double-hit lymphoma. Flow cytometry studies demonstrated positivity for CD45, CD20, HLA-Dr, CD19, CD11c, CD22, CD30, CD38, CD79b, and FMC7. Low positivity was seen for CD5. No reactivity was seen for CD10, CD23, CD25, CD103 or CD123.

    Both histologic plus immunophenotyping or genetic testing should be positive to assign code 3 for Diagnostic Confirmation. The Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Coding Manual Diagnostic Confirmation instructions state, assign 3 for

    Cases positive for neoplasm being abstracted (including acceptable ambiguous terminology and

    provisional diagnosis) AND Immunophenotyping, genetic testing, or JAK2 is listed in the Definitive Diagnosis in the Heme DB AND a.) Confirms the neoplasm OR b.) Identifies a more specific histology (not preceded by ambiguous terminology).

    Because the patient was diagnosed with DLBCL by histology, and flow cytometry was positive for CD antigens (immunophenotyping) 20, 22, and 30 for DLBCL, code 3 is appropriate.

    		 2017
    		20200054

    Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Liver: When does a hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence in the same area of the liver get accessioned as a new tumor following TACE/Y90/RFA? If there is a new HCC in the same area as previously treated but it is stated to be recurrent and/or progressive disease, is that evidence of a disease-free interval? If the tumor area is stated to be LR-TR and non-viable, but then a new HCC in that area is diagnosed, does that count as a disease-free interval? See Discussion.

    Example 1: 5/2013 diagnosis of HCC in segment 4B (single tumor), treated with microwave ablation in 7/2013. CT scan in 11/2017 with new 23mm hypodensity in liver segment 4 suspicious for recurrent disease. Clinical assessment in 1/2018: New enlarging lesion in liver most consistent with progression of HCC. Treated with RFA in 2/2018. Is the 2018 occurrence a new primary as imaging stated this was a new lesion?

    Example 2: 7/2017 diagnosis of HCC in right liver; 2.5 cm lesion in segment 5/6 with a couple of satellites and 12mm lesion in segment 6, treated with Y90 radioembolization. Follow-up note in 11/2017: complete response of treated cluster of lesions in segment 5/6 and lesion in segment 6, increase in size of caudate lesion not amenable for treatment (this lesion was stated to be indeterminate on 7/2017 imaging). Caudate lesion finally stated as LI-RADS5 on 3/2018 imaging and was treated with chemoembolization 6/2018. 7/2018 and 10/2018 Follow-up imaging states LR-TR nonviable lesion in caudate lobe. 8/2019 CT shows caudate lobe with arterial enhancement, new compared to prior imaging, LR-TR viable. MD note states patient has small local HCC recurrence in segment 1 (caudate lobe) with plan to repeat TACE. Is this 8/2019 HCC a new primary as the patient was disease free for greater than 1 year, or is it the same tumor and a single primary?

    Both examples are multiple primaries.

    Example 1: The 2018 lesion is a new tumor. Abstract multiple primaries based on 2018 Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M10, when tumors are diagnosed more than one year apart.

    Example 2: 2017 diagnosis showed complete response to treatment. 2019 lesion is a new primary based on timing.

    The General Instructions of the Solid Tumor Rules instruct: Do not use a physician's statement to decide whether the patient has a recurrence of a previous cancer or a new primary. Each scenario should be evaluated separately using the rules as a guide.

    		 2020