Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20210074 | Update to Current Manual/Neoadjuvant Therapy--Pancreas: How are the neoadjuvant items coded for a patient who has unresectable pancreatic cancer and starts chemotherapy but will be evaluated after X cycles to see if patient may become a surgical candidate? |
Assign the neoadjuvant therapy data items as if the patient had neoadjuvant therapy. Neoadjuvant Therapy data item would be coded either code 1 or 2 depending on whether the chemotherapy was completed or not. In this case, they are a surgical candidate by having the chemotherapy with the plan from the beginning to evaluate the chemotherapy after X cycles to see if surgery can be performed. After the patient is evaluated, update the abstract as needed. |
2021 | |
|
|
20210062 | Histology/Reportability--Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a case that is compatible with low grade myelodysplastic syndrome with multilineage dysplasia (MDS-MLD) reportable, and if so, is the histology plasma cell myeloma or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)? See Discussion. |
HL-7 e-path report, Final Diagnosis High normocellular marrow with maturing trilineage hematopoiesis, multilineage dyspoiesis, compatible with MDS-MLD and involvement by plasma cell neoplasm/myeloma, IgA kappa positive, approximately 20-25% of total cellularity present. See comment. Comments Correlation with other relevant laboratory (amount and type of serum and urine paraprotein levels, renal function tests, serum calcium level, and anemia) and radiologic (lytic bone lesions) findings is recommended for complete interpretation. Dyspoiesis of all lineages is seen and the findings are compatible with low grade myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS-MLD), assuming that other possible causes are excluded. Correlation with cytogenetic and molecular studies is recommended for complete characterization |
This case is reportable. Assign MDS, NOS (9989/3) based on the information provided for this case. “Compatible with” can be used for reportability; however, it cannot be used for assigning histology. There is no confirmed diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma/neoplasm; the comment specifically addresses the need for further evaluation of this case. |
2021 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20210066 | 2021 SEER Manual/Surgery of Primary Site--Lung: What is the correct surgery code for a left upper lobe (LUL) wedge resection (confirming adenocarcinoma) followed by a lingular-sparing LUL lobectomy and mediastinal lymph node dissection? Is the correct Surgery Code 22 since the lingula was not resected (not the whole LUL Lung)? Or should the appropriate surgery code be 33 (this surgery suffices to code to a lobectomy with the mediastinal lymph node dissection)? |
Assign code 22 for LUL wedge resection followed by a lingular-sparing LUL lobectomy and mediastinal lymph node dissection. Code the lymph node surgery in Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery. We obtained input from an expert who agrees with this code. He states a lingula-sparing lobectomy is best coded as a segmentectomy because it is the same as an apical trisegmentectomy. |
2021 | |
|
|
20210043 | Reportability/Histology--Fallopian Tube: Is a diagnosis of serous tubal intraepithelial neoplasm (neoplasia) (STIN) equivalent to serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC)? Does the designation of high or low grade have any effect on potential reportability? See Discussion. |
Patient has left salpingo-oophorectomy showing fallopian tube with focal high grade serous intraepithelial neoplasm. In reviewing some journal articles, the term STIN is being used to describe both STIC and serous tubal intraepithelial lesion (STIL). We will likely continue to see this term used, so it would be nice to have some clarity. |
Serous tubal intraepithelial neoplasm (neoplasia) (STIN) is not equivalent to serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC). Report STIN only when stated to be high grade. STIC is reportable. Do not report STIL. According to our expert pathologist consultant, STIL and STIN are broad descriptive terms that reflect proliferation of epithelial cells with varying degrees of atypia, with the most developed, STIC, reflecting convincing neoplastic change. |
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 | |
|
|
20210012 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018, 2021/Multiple Primaries/)--Lung: How many primaries should be reported and what M rule applies when a diagnosis of presumed adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) of the left lung follows a known diagnosis of progressive multifocal malignant adenocarcinoma in the right lung? See Discussion. |
Patient was initially diagnosed with a right lower lobe (RLL) lung adenocarcinoma in 2014 followed by subsequent right upper lobe (RUL) lung adenocarcinoma in 2016 (single primary). Both were treated with radiation and the nodules were seen as stable on surveillance. There was subsequent growth in the RUL nodule in 2019 and RLL nodule in 2020 as well as a new right middle lobe (RML) nodule in 2020. All left sided nodules were noted to be stable and/or ground glass opacities. There was no documented diagnosis of malignancy in the left lung until June 2020 when the physician noted that if there was a response in the left lung to systemic treatment, then this was probably multifocal AIS. However, only one tumor in the left lung responded to treatment. While it seems somewhat unlikely that only a single AIS in the contralateral lung should be metastasis from the right lung malignancy, it is difficult to apply the multiple tumors rules to this case. |
Abstract a single primary using 2018 Lung Solid Tumor Rule M9. The 2014 and 2016 R lung tumors were pathologically confirmed; it is not stated if they were resected. Follow up after XRT noted stable disease but no indication of NED. Subsequent right lung tumor is also the same primary. The issue is the assumed left lung adenocarcinoma in situ. It is not clear how long the left lung nodules were present, but they appeared to be stable as well and only diagnosed as a malignancy based on treatment response. At this time M9 applies and the left lung AIS is not a separate primary. We have discussed at length with lung pathology experts the issue of determining multiple primaries. Identifying and diagnosing lung tumors has become easier with new technology and the result is patients are being diagnosed with multiple lung tumors. Some lung experts feel we are under-reporting lung primaries but all noted the many issues with creating rules for consistency. |
2021 |
|
|
20210011 | Primary site: Is C720 the correct primary site for a diagnosis of a paraspinal neuroblastoma on autopsy in a nine month old with Noonan syndrome? See Discussion. |
Autopsy/Pathology Report (2020) excerpts External Examination Nervous System: There is an 8.5 cm mass located in the right thoracic paraspinal area. Final Anatomic Diagnosis Clinical History: Paraspinal mass suspicious for neuroblastic tumor (detected by imaging studies) Nervous System: Right thoracic paraspinal neuroblastoma, poorly differentiated |
Assign primary site code C473 for this case based on the information provided (peripheral nerves and autonomic nervous system of thorax). From our expert pathologist consultant: The origin of neuroblastomas is generally in the adrenal medulla or one of the sympathetic ganglia on either side of the vertebral column (although they have been reported in many other locations given the migration of the neural crest cells embryologically). |
2021 |
|
|
20210003 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Primary Site--Head & Neck: The instructions for Table 9 of the Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules instruct registrars to code the primary site to C479 (Autonomic nervous system) for paragangliomas that arise in the head and neck region, but the ICD-O-3.2 provides a site-associated code for most of these tumors (C754, Carotid body and C755, Paraganglion). Which primary site is correct? See Discussion. |
While we recognize that paragangliomas originate in the parasympathetic or sympathetic nervous system, these are endocrine tumors and endocrine glands/structures are not included in ICD-O site code C479 (Autonomic nervous system). Endocrine tumors of the paraganglia have their own site codes (C75_) per the ICD-O. Additionally, the ICD-O-3.2 provides specific sites for most of the paragangliomas included in Table 9. Per the ICD-O-3.2, carotid body paraganglioma is C754, and middle ear paraganglioma, glomus jugulare tumor, jugulotympanic paraganglioma, and paraganglioma (NOS) are C755. Why are paragangliomas not coded to the paraganglia sites (C75_) provided in the ICD-O? Should these sites be added to the Head & Neck schema for the specific paragangliomas arising in the head and neck? Obtaining consistency in coding primary site for these tumors will be difficult if registrars use the ICD-O provided site codes instead of the primary site statement preceding Table 9. Additionally, as most registrars may use the ICD-O provided site code, the Head and Neck schema in the Solid Tumor Rules would not apply, the Other Sites schema would apply to sites C754 and C755. |
Always code primary site to the site of origin. Look for information about where the neoplasm originated. Primary site should always be coded to reflect the site of origin according to the medical opinion on the case. Always code the primary site based on where the tumor arose / site of origin. Site of origin may be indicated by terms such as "tumor arose from," "tumor originated in," or similar statements. Refer to ICD-O-3.2 and ICD-O-3 for topographty codes that are associated with specific histologies whenthe medical documentation does not specify the primary site. |
2021 |
|
|
20210076 | Reportability/Brain and CNS: Is a 2021 case of ecchordosis physaliphora (lesion within the prepontine cistern) on brain MRI reportable? |
Ecchordosis physaliphora is not reportable. |
2021 |
An official website of the United States government
