MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Thyroid: How many primaries should be reported when a complete thyroidectomy specimen shows two tumors: 1.8 cm papillary carcinoma with tall cell features (8344/3) and a 0.4 cm papillary thyroid carcinoma (8260/3)? See discussion.
Is papillary thyroid carcinoma an NOS histology qualifying for rule M16, thus leading to a single primary, or would M17 apply (multiple primaries) because the histology codes are different at the second digit (8260 and 8344)? While rule M16 doesn't include papillary thyroid carcinoma in the listed histologies, it seems like it may be an NOS histology for the thyroid. In addition, code 8260/3 is listed as NOS in the ICD-O-3.
Apply rule M16 and abstract a single primary. These two thyroid tumors, one papillary carcinoma with tall cell features (8344/3) and one papillary thyroid carcinoma, fit the criteria for rule M16, although not explicity listed there. We will clarify this in the next version of the rules.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Sarcoma: What would be the morphology code for a low grade myofibroblastic sarcoma of the left distal forearm? I tried several different combinations but the closest I could come up with is myosarcoma.
Assign code 8825/3. Apply the ICD-O-3 Matrix Concept, Rule F, page 29 of the hardcover ICD-O-3. The WHO Classification of Soft tissue and Bone, page 85, lists low grade myofibroblastic sarcoma, also called myofibrosarcoma, 8825/3.
MP/H--Bladder: Are 8130 and rule H12 correct for this case? Bladder with papillary urothelial carcinoma with squamous cell differentiation.
Rule H8 applies, code the histology with the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code which is papillary transitional cell carcinoma, 8130.
Based on the information provided, there is a single bladder tumor, papillary urothelial carcinoma with squamous cell differentiation. Urinary sites rule H12 does not apply because this is a single tumor, not multiple tumors. In the single tumor H rules, H3 does not apply as this rule does not include papillary transitional cell carcinoma. Rule H4 is papillary carcinoma or papillary transitional cell carcinoma and refers you to Table 1. Table 1 does not list papillary urothelial carcinoma with squamous cell differentiation because there is no ICD-O-3 code for this histology. Table 1 does list transitional cell carcinoma with squamous differentiation as code 8120, however, the papillary transitional cell carcinoma is the higher code, 8130. We will review this situation for the next version of the rules.
MP/H/Histology--Kidney, renal pelvis: What is the histology code for renal cell carcinoma translocation type?
Code renal cell carcinoma translocation type as renal cell carcinoma, NOS, 8312. While WHO recognizes renal cell carcinomas with associated translocations, there is no specific ICD-O-3 code for this variant of renal cell carcinoma.
Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the 1995 diagnosis be changed to plasmacytoma? A 1995 case on the central registry database indicates that MRI and bone surveys revealed a pubic ramus lesion that was biopsied. There are no other bone lesions. A bone marrow biopsy was negative. The pathologist's diagnosis at that time was "Plasma Cell Myeloma". In 2013 there was a positive bone marrow biopsy and a diagnosis of Plasma Cell Myeloma. In 2013, a history of "sequential plasmacytomas since 1995" was mentioned. Since the 1995 diagnosis was only a solitary bone lesion with no marrow involvement, it certainly seems to fit a diagnosis of plasmacytoma better than myeloma.
Do not change the 1995 diagnosis in this case. It is best to code the histology according to information from the time of the diagnosis. Using information obtained many years later is less reliable.
Primary site: If text supports a pancreatobiliary primary with no other information what primary site code would be assigned? C249 biliary tract NOS, or C269 GI tract nos, or C809 unknown?
Assign C269 in the absence of any additional information.
Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is this a reportable case and if so what codes would be used for the primary site and histology?
Lymph node flow cytometry and bone marrow biopsy revealed involvement by a low-grade B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder. Medical oncologist states monoclonal gammopathy, question marginal zone B cell lymphoma versus lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/lymphoproliferative disorder.
Based on the information provided, this case is not reportable. Low grade B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder is not reportable, nor is monoclonal gammopathy. There is no definitive diagnosis for marginal zone or lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. The terminology used includes "question" and "versus" which are not acceptable ambiguous terms for reportability. If possible, follow up with the physician regarding the definitive diagnosis.
Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Prostate: Can you clarify why a prostate biopsy diagnosis of “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” is not reportable while a biopsy diagnosis of “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable? See discussion.
SINQ 20091103 states that prostate biopsies showing “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” are NOT reportable. However, SINQ 20071056 states that “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable. This appears to be an issue of semantics with no clearly outlined method to determine reportability of such cases.
We have two recent cases with similar semantic issues and want to know whether they are reportable.
1) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation, highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma, with quality/quantity insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer.”
2) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma but due to the small size of focus, findings are not definitively diagnostic.”
Both case examples provided are reportable using instructions for ambiguous terminology. The diagnoses are qualified by the words "highly suspicious" because neither diagnosis is definitive ("insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer" and "not definitively diagnostic."). However, we follow our instructions for interpreting ambiguous terminology and report these cases.
SINQ 20091103 differs slightly. The final diagnosis in 20091103 declares unequivocally "not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma." That phrase in the final diagnosis negates the ambiguous terminology. The situation in 20071056 is similar to the two examples above - the ambiguous terminology instructions apply.
Reportability--Pancreas: Is a solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas reportable?
Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas is reportable. According to the WHO classification, it is a "low-grade malignant neoplasm…[which] frequently undergoes hemorrhagic-cystic degeneration and occurs predominantly in young women."
Assign topography code C25 with the appropriate 4th digit. Code the histology as 8452/3.
An official website of the United States government
Home