Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20160045 | Neoadjuvant treatment/Grade--Prostate: How should the grade/differentiation field be coded when hormone therapy is given prior to radiation for metastatic prostate cancer? Is hormone treatment "neoadjuvant treatment" in this situation? Per NCCN guidelines, neoadjuvant hormone therapy is strongly discouraged outside of a clinical trial for localized disease. However for metastatic disease, hormone is recommended (gold standard). See discussion. |
8/1/15 CT Exam showed enlarged prostate and left seminal vesicle with multiple enlarged pelvic LNs. Findings: suspicious for prostate cancer with invasion of seminal vesicle. Bone scan findings: positive bone mets in multiple sites. PSA 169.0 (elevated). Patient was started on casodex 8/12/15. A prostate biopsy was performed on 9/16/15 to confirm diagnosis, adenocarcinoma Gleason 4+5. Patient's treatment continued with radiation to bone. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 2018 Code the grade/differentiation field from the biopsy for this situation. According to experts consulted, hormone therapy does not alter the grade in this case and grade should be coded based on information after hormone therapy when that is the only grade information available. |
2016 |
|
|
20180006 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Should encapsulated papillary carcinoma of the breast with a separate focus of ductal carcinoma in situ be coded as 8050/2 (papillary carcinoma) and staged as in situ? See Discussion. |
Pathology--Right breast, lumpectomy with needle localization: Encapsulated papillary carcinoma of the breast. A separate focus of ductal carcinoma in situ is present. Sentinel lymph node, right breast, biopsy: One lymph node, negative for malignancy. No metastatic carcinoma is seen on slides stained with immunostain for cytokeratin (AE1/AE3). Specimen laterality: Right. Tumor size: 1.2 cm. Histologic type: Encapsulated papillary carcinoma. Nuclear grade: Grade 1 (low). Mitotic rate: Score 1. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): DCIS is present. Estimated size (extent) of DCIS: 3 mm. Architectural patterns: Cribriform and papillary. Nuclear grade: grade 1 (low). Necrosis: Not identified. Margins: Margins uninvolved by encapsulated papillary carcinoma. Distance from closest margin: 8 mm, superior Margins uninvolved by DCIS. Distance from closest margin: 11 mm, superior Lymph nodes: Total number of lymph nodes examined (sentinel and nonsentinel): 1. Number of sentinel lymph nodes examined: 1. Number of lymph nodes with tumor cells: 0. Pathologic staging: Primary tumor: See comment. Regional lymph nodes: pN0(i-). Comment: In the WHO Classification of Tumours of the Breast (2012), it is stated that "there is no universal agreement on how to stage encapsulated papillary carcinomas. In the absence of conventional invasive carcinoma, the consensus of the WHO Working Group was that such lesions should be staged and managed as Tis disease." |
For cases diagnosed prior to 2018 Code as encapsulated papillary carcinoma, 8504/3; this is a synonym for intracystic carcinoma (WHO Classification of Tumors of the Breast). Stage this case as invasive. |
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 | |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20071011 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted when each of multiple breast "re-excisions" performed more than two months apart in 2006 demonstrate intraductal carcinoma and there is no mention of "recurrence"? See Discussion. | Right Breast 06/27/2002 exc bx, DCIS. Margins involved. 09/24/2002 re-exc, several foci of intraductal ca. Margins involved. 10/15/2002 re-exc, microfocus of DCIS Radiation treatment started 11/18/2002. Is this 1, possibly 2, or maybe 3 breast primaries because of the 2 month rule and no statement of "recurrence"? Based on SINQ #20000478, this would be at least 2, but possible 3 primaries. Based on SINQ #20021143, this would be 1 primary if the case were diagnosed from 1998-2003. The excisions appear to represent wider excisions of the same tumor. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 2013:
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007, this is one primary, assuming these are wider excisions of the same tumor.
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules. |
2007 |
|
|
20071063 | Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation: If a diagnosis based solely on positive flow cytometry is reportable even if a bone marrow biopsy is negative, how is diagnostic confirmation coded? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 2010 The case is reportable if a recognized medical practitioner says the patient has cancer. A flow cytometry alone is not diagnostic but it may be supported by either a positive bone marrow or a clinician's statement. If the clinicians statement is based only on flow cytometry, code diagnostic confirmation to 8 [Clinical diagnosis only]. |
2007 | |
|
|
20021029 | Grade, Differentiation--Breast: Should the Bloom-Richardson (BR) grade (low, intermediate, high) have a higher priority than terminology (i.e., well differentiated)? See discussion. | 1. Grade of infiltrating carcinoma 1) Nuclear grade low; 2) Histological grade-intermediate; 3) Mitotic rate-low, 4) BR score 4.
2. Poorly differentiated but grade II/III. Microscopic comment: Slides show infiltrating ca which is P.D. in that it forms no tubules, but is grade 2 out of 3 in the modified BR scheme. It is ductal type with large moderately pleomorphic tumor cells displaying few mitoses.
3. Invasive moderately differentiated duct cell carcinoma with the following features: Modified BR grade: III/III (2+3+3=8). |
For cases diagnosed prior to 2004:
Code the example cases as follows:
1. Grade 2. Histologic grade terminology ("intermediate") has the highest priority.
2. Grade 3. Terminology ("poorly differentiated") has the highest priority.
3. Grade 2. Histologic grade terminology "moderately differentiated" has priority. |
2002 |
|
|
20010117 | Grade, Differentiation--Prostate: Has SEER officially changed the conversion code for Gleason score 7 to poorly differentiated [grade 3]? | For cases diagnosed prior to 2003, there has been no change in SEER standards for converting a Gleason score to a grade. As described in the SEER Program Code Manual, Gleason score 7 is converted to moderately differentiated [grade 2]. ONLY if the pathology report lists moderately poorly differentiated IN ADDITION to the Gleason's score 7, would you code the case as 3. For cases diagnosed in 2003 and later, please see question number 20031123. |
2001 | |
|
|
20150046 | Reportability--Appendix: Is the appendix the primary site for a low grade mucinous appendiceal neoplasm (LAMN) with diffuse peritoneal dissemination? See discussion. |
Patient had an appendectomy revealing a low grade mucinous appendiceal neoplasm (LAMN) with diffuse peritoneal dissemination. Patient now with cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), which revealed metastatic disease in the abdomen, omentum, pelvic peritoneum, peri-cecal, and gallbladder. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2022 Low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) is not reportable, even when it spreads within the peritoneal cavity, according to our expert pathologist consultant. Peritoneal spread of this /1 neoplasm does not indicate malignancy. It is still /1 when there is spread of LAMN in the peritoneal cavity. |
2015 |
|
|
20180089 | Reportability--Appendix: Is disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis (DPAM) reportable when it is being referred to as if the primary tumor is a low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN)? See Discussion. |
Example 1: 8/23/2017 debulking path diagnosis of low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) with involvement of intrapelvic mucin, left ovarian mass, uterine serosa and pelvic tumor, consistent with disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis, that may also be called low-grade mucinous carcinoma peritonei. 8/8/2018 resection of sigmoid and rectum, path diagnosis of peri-colorectal fibroadipose issue with low-grade mucinous carcinoma compatible with the prior diagnosis of pseumomyxoma peritonei with low-grade mucinous carcinoma histology. Example 2: Path diagnosis of low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm in association with low grade mucinous carcinoma peritonei involving the serosa of the small intestine and mesentery. Also, there is involvement of serosal lined soft tissue of peritoneum, omentum, stomach, falciform ligament, gallbladder, diaphragm and spleen. Some pathologists in our area are referring to DPAM as mucinous carcinoma peritonei, which is causing confusion because the term carcinoma is being used. One would assume that because the pseudomyxoma peritonei/underlying tumor itself is low-grade (LAMN), then the case is not reportable, but we would like clarification. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2022 Disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis (DPAM) is not reportable when the primary tumor is a low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN). The term disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis (DPAM) is discouraged by the WHO Digestive System monograph (page 123, section on pseudomyxoma peritonei (mucinous carcinoma peritonei)), since it does not clarify whether the process is low grade or high grade carcinoma. When used, the term should be referring back to the histology of the defining process and in both of these examples this appears to be LAMN, and therefore not reportable. The only exception to this might be if the peritoneal implants were invasive; that is, they contained adenocarcinoma invading into the underlying peritoneum, bowel serosa, etc., rather than simply being present within the surface mucinous material. The pathologist would make this clear if this was, in fact, believed to be invasive carcinoma. |
2018 |
An official website of the United States government
