Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20170063 | Reportability/Behavior--Ovary: Is adult granulosa cell tumor a reportable malignant tumor if the primary ovarian tumor ruptured intraoperatively, the peritoneum was contaminated, and the patient underwent adjuvant treatment with chemotherapy given the increased risk of recurrence due to intraoperative tumor spill? See Discussion. |
Per SINQ 20130176 and 20140034, adult granulosa cell tumors of the ovary are reportable malignant tumors when there are peritoneal implants or metastases. The SINQ responses describe how these adult granulosa cell tumors are different from low malignant potential (LMP) epithelial ovarian tumors. Would these SINQ scenarios apply to a case with intraoperative tumor rupture that resulted in peritoneal tumor? In this case, the pathologist indicated these excised peritoneal specimens were favored to be intraoperative contamination with adult granulosa cell tumor. However, the oncologist went on to treat this patient as high risk with chemotherapy. The oncologist only described one of the pelvic peritoneal implants as possibly contamination due to the rupture. The oncologist never indicated the tumors were definitely peritoneal implants. Should the behavior of this tumor be /1 because the peritoneal tumor appears to be contamination, or /3 because the oncologist treated this patient as high risk? |
If the "implants" were due to intraoperative contamination and were not present prior to surgery, do not interpret them as indicative of malignancy. The behavior of this tumor is /1. |
2017 |
|
|
20170057 | Grade: If the biopsy site is a higher grade, is the grade of the biopsy used over the grade of the surgical resection? See Discussion. |
When coding tumor grade, our pathologists have told us to code grade based on the specimen from the most definitive surgery or with the most amount of tissue, and that coding grade from the biopsy would not be appropriate even if it is a higher grade than from the surgical resection. Coding of solid tumors Instruction 5 states: If there is more than one grade, code the highest grade within the applicable system. Code the highest grade even if it is only a focus. Code grade in the following priority order using the first applicable system. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 2018: Use the Grade Coding Instructions to code grade. The instructions are intended to standardize coding of grade across the U.S. and to eliminate differences in opinion between pathologists. Standardized coding ensures that data can be combined and used for statistical analysis. You may code grade based on the biopsy when following the grade coding instructions. |
2017 |
|
|
20180062 | Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology coded when a lymph node excisional biopsy shows Nodular lymphocyte predominant Hodgkin lymphoma (NLPHL), predominantly in diffuse T-cell histiocyte rich large B-cell lymphoma-like (THRLBCL) pattern. Comment states: The findings are that of nodular lymphocyte predominant Hodgkin lymphoma with diffuse T-cell rich pattern (T-cell/histiocyte-rich large B-cell lymphoma-like). This variant is regarded as clinically more advanced. See Discussion. |
It appears an argument could be made for both NLPHL (9659/3) and THRLBCL (9688/3). We favor coding NLPHL (9659/3) because the pathologist did specifically call this a Hodgkin lymphoma, and also specified that it only has a T-cell/histiocyte-rich large B-cell lymphoma-like pattern. |
Assign histology code 9659/3. According to the Hematopoietic database, this histology frequently has T-cells. The other description was not an actual histology, but noting that the appearance of the cells was similar to that histology. |
2018 |
|
|
20180102 | Solid Tumor Rules 2018/Histology--Brain and CNS: What code should be used for high grade neuroepithelial tumor with BCOR Alteration? See Discussion |
A recent molecular study of PNET tumors at NCI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5139621) seems to indicate the discovery of four new CNS tumor entities, of which HGNET-BCOR is one. The article suggests that these are not primitive neuroectodermal tumors tumors (PNET), but something different. |
This question was reviewed by an expert neuropathologist. He recommends coding these tumors to malignant tumor, clear cell type 8005/3. He states: these tumors are extremely rare. In summary, CNS HGNET-BCOR represents a rare tumor occurring in young patients with dismal prognosis. Whether CNS HGNET-BCOR should be classified among the category of "embryonal tumors" or within the category of "mesenchymal, nonmeningothelial tumors" remains to be clarified. Because CNS HGNET-BCOR share pathologic features and characteristic BCOR-ITD with clear cell sarcoma of the kidney, these tumors may represent local variants of the same entity. |
2018 |
|
|
20180002 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: Is a renal pelvis diagnosed 5/2016 a separate primary when the first invasive bladder was 12/2011? Per rule M7, the 5/2016 renal pelvis is more than 3 years later. Does Multiple Primary/Histology (MP/H) rule M7 refer back to the original diagnosis date or to the last occurrence? See Discussion. |
12/30/11 Bladder Biopsy: Diffuse carcinoma in situ of bladder, urothelial cancer at trigone (Stage T1) 1/30/2012 Transurethral resection of the bladder was non-papillary, urothelial carcinoma, focal invasion of lamina propria, staged T1 11/10/14, 9/28/15, 9/26/16, 10/19/17 all had positive bladder cytology of urothelial carcinoma 5/16/16 Left renal pelvis aspirate: positive for malignant cells, urothelial carcinoma 9/26/16 Left renal pelvis aspirate: positive for malignant cells, urothelial carcinoma 10/18/16-11/7/16 Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) x3 administered into the renal collecting system via ureteral catheter |
For cases diagnosed prior to 2018 This case is a single primary. This patient has not had a disease-free interval as demonstrated by the positive cytologies from 2014 through 2017. The MP/H rules cannot be applied in this case. To answer your question about the timing of rule M7, please see slide 6 in the Beyond the Basics MP/H advanced training, General Instructions, https://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/training_adv/SEER_MPH_Gen_Instruc_06152007.pdf |
2018 |
|
|
20180014 | Reportability/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumor of the cerebrum reportable, and if so, is the histology coded as 9492/0? See Discussion. |
Patient diagnosed with multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumor of the cerebrum. My research shows: Multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumor of the cerebrum is a recently reported benign, mixed glial neuronal lesion that is included in the 2016 updated World Health Organization classification of brain neoplasms as a unique cytoarchitectural pattern of gangliocytoma. There is no code in ICD-O-3 for it, so do I report it and use 9492/0 or not ? |
Do not report multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumor of the cerebrum. At this time, WHO is undecided about whether this is a neoplastic or a hamartomatous/malformative process. If WHO makes a determination that this is a neoplastic process, we will update reportability instructions and ICD-O-3 guidelines for registrars. |
2018 |
|
|
20180105 | 2018 Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the appropriate histology code for the case below in the Discussion section? Is there a difference between adenocarcinoma in situ (bronchioloalveolar carcinoma), non-mucinous type (8252/2) and adenocarcinoma in-situ, mucinous? See Discussion. |
Procedure: Wedge, resection specimen, Laterality: Right, Tumor site: Right upper lobe, Tumor size: 1.0 cm in greatest dimension, Histologic type: Adenocarcinoma in-situ, mucinous, Histologic grade: N/A, Visceral pleura invasion: Not identified, Tumor extension: N/A, Margins: Uninvolved, Lymphocytosis. |
Assign 8253/2 for adenocarcinoma in situ, mucinous. New codes were added in 2018 for mucinous adenocarcinoma in situ for lung cancer only as all cases were not invasive. Pathologist are discouraged from using the term BAC. In-situ lung tumors can now be identified as either mucinous or non-mucinous and the appropriate ICD-O code should be assigned based on diagnosis. |
2018 |
|
|
20180012 | First course of treatment: What is the correct code to use for allogenic stem cell transplant? |
Code an allogenic stem cell transplant as 20 (Stem cell harvest (stem cell transplant) and infusion) in Hematologic Transplant and Endocrine Procedures in the 2016 SEER Manual. |
2018 | |
|
|
20180008 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Thyroid: Is medullary carcinoma of the right lobe of the thyroid, with foci of papillary microcarcinoma in both lobes, one primary with mixed histology (8347/3) or two separate primaries? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 2018 Abstract two primaries, Medullary (8510/3) and papillary microcarcinoma (8260/3). Other sites rule M17 applies. |
2018 | |
|
|
20180054 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Bladder: Under the Terms that are Not Equivalent or Equal section (Urinary Equivalent Terms and Definitions) it indicates noninvasive is not equivalent to papillary urothelial carcinoma and one should code the histology documented by the pathologist. However, many pathologists use Ta as both the description of the stage and the histology. Should this note be amended? See Discussion. |
The note in the Urinary Terms and Definition states, Both Ta and Tis tumors are technically noninvasive. Code the histology specified by the pathologist. While it is true that both Ta and Tis are technically noninvasive, the AJCC defines Ta specifically for, A pathologist's use of Ta does indicate the noninvasive carcinoma did arise from a papillary tumor. However, not all pathologists use terminology that, following the Urinary Solid Tumor Histology Coding Rules, will result in a histology coded to 8130, despite an AJCC-defined Ta (noninvasive papillary carcinoma) tumor having been diagnosed because the tumor projected from the wall on a stalk. In our region a number of pathologists provide the following types of diagnosis. Histologic type: Noninvasive. Histologic grade (WHO/ISUP 2016): High-grade. Tumor configuration: Papillary. The pathologist and/or physician may then stage this as Ta. How is the histology coded for these cases if the H Rules do not allow one to code the papillary and noninvasive Ta disease as not equivalent to noninvasive papillary carcinoma? Flat (in situ) urothelial carcinoma has an increased risk of invasive disease compared to the noninvasive papillary urothelial carcinomas. Will there be inconsistencies or a resulting impact to analysis of truly flat/in situ urothelial carcinoma vs. papillary urothelial carcinomas if the papillary tumors are not being coded as such? |
Per the April 2019 update: Noninvasive; papillary urothelial carcinoma; flat urothelial carcinoma Note: Noninvasive is not equivalent to either papillary urothelial or flat urothelial carcinoma. Both Ta and Tis tumors are technically noninvasive. Code the histology specified by the pathologist. |
2018 |
An official website of the United States government
