Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20110042 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: How is histology coded when the initial biopsies of retroperitoneal mass demonstrated non-seminomatous germ cell tumor, but after neoadjuvant chemotherapy the final diagnosis on the radical orchiectomy specimen demonstrated mature teratoma, NOS (not stated to be malignant)? See Discussion. | A large retroperitoneal mass was found on CT scan. A biopsy demonstrated non-seminomatous germ cell tumor. The biopsy was done at an outside facility. Neither the CT scan nor biopsy pathology report is available for review. Following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the retroperitoneal mass decreased to 12 cm. Subsequently, the patient had a right radical orchiectomy. The final diagnosis per the pathology reports was a 3.5 cm mature teratoma (NOS, not stated to be "malignant") of right testicle. The patient then had resection of the retroperitoneal mass and biopsies. Pathology showed the "excision" specimen contained 6 benign lymph nodes and two of the "biopsy" specimens showed non-seminomatous germ cell neoplasm with IHC findings suggestive of a mix of embryonal carcinoma and a lesser component of yolk sac tumor. | This is a reportable case. Even though the pathology from the orchiectomy stated mature teratoma, NOS, the presence of lymph node metastases proves that this tumor is malignant. Code the histology as 9065/3 [germ cell tumor non-seminomatous].
The majority of germ cell tumors show the presence of multiple histologies. While the original tumor showed only mature teratoma, there were obviously yolk sac cells that were not detected on the sections taken from the primary tumor. Both teratoma and yolk sac are germ cell tumors. This explains why the pathologist gave you the diagnosis of germ cell tumor. The classification of "non-seminomatous" simply means that there was no seminomas present in the mixture of germ cell histologies. |
2011 |
|
|
20120017 | Reportability: Is a low-grade neuroendocrine neoplasm with gastrin expression found in a periportal lymph node reportable if the clinical impression is compatible with a gastrinoma? See Discussion. |
SINQ 20110095 states that "low-grade neuroendocrine neoplasm/carcinoid tumor with expression of gastrin" is reportable. However, in this case "carcinoid tumor" is not mentioned. Is this case reportable if the expression "carcinoid tumor" is missing in the diagnosis of the pathology report? Also, does the fact that the gastrinoma was found in a lymph node affect reportability? |
This is a reportable case. Code the histology as malignant gastrinoma [8153/3]. Gastrinomas are usually malignant. This one is apparently present in a metastatic site (periportal lymph node) which confirms the malignancy. |
2012 |
|
|
20110004 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Which MP/H rule applies when coding the histology field for a tumor described as a "metaplastic carcinoma, adenosquamous and spindle cell type"? See Discussion. | Per path comment: "The neoplasm is composed of adenosquamous carcinoma which merges with spindle cell carcinoma. The cystic component shows a mixed squamous and ductal epithelial lining which shows cytologic atypia and mitotic activity and can be seen to merge with invasive carcinoma. The features suggest the possibility that the tumor may have arisen from a sclerosing and cystic papilloma with squamous metaplasia, although a clearly benign component is not evident."
Would MP/H rule H19 apply based on the pathology report comment resulting in histology for the case being coded to 8255 [adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes]? Or, would MP/H rule H14 apply based on the final diagnosis resulting in histology for the case being coded to 8575 [metaplastic carcinoma] because adenosquamous and spindle cell are not specific types of metaplastic carcinoma? |
This is a metaplastic carcinoma as stated in the path diagnosis. Rule H14 applies. Assign code 8575/3. According to the WHO Classification, metaplastic carcinoma is a general term for a group of neoplasms characterized by a mixture of adenocarcinoma with dominant areas of spindle cell, squamous, and/or mesenchymal differentiation.
Use the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual for cases diagnosed 2007 or later to determine the histology for this case. Code histology to 8575/3 [metaplastic carcinoma] as stated in the pathology diagnosis.
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Breast Histo rules determine histology for the case.
Go to the SINGLE TUMOR: INVASIVE CARCINOMA ONLY module. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module from Rule H10 to Rule H19. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.
Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. According to the WHO Classification, metaplastic carcinoma is a general term for a group of neoplasms characterized by a mixture of adenocarcinoma with dominant areas of spindle cell, squamous, and/or mesenchymal differentiation. |
2011 |
|
|
20210017 | Update to current manual/Mets at diagnosis fields--Lymphoma: Are distant metastases possible for a lymphoma with a primary site of lymph nodes? The instructions in the SEER manual tell us to assign code 8 in each of the Mets at Dx fields for a lymphoma originating in lymph nodes. |
This is a correction to the SEER manual. Lymphomas originating in lymph nodes (C77) could have distant metastases to any site except lymph nodes. The following corrections to the manual apply now and will appear in the next version of the manual. Remove C770-C779 from the instruction for assigning code 8 on the following pages. Page 135 Mets at Dx--Bone Page 137 Mets at Dx--Brain Page 139 Mets at Dx--Liver Page 141 Mets at Dx--Lung Page 145 Mets at Dx--Other Example Biopsy of axillary lymph node: Diffuse Large B-Cell lymphoma. Lymph nodes involved above and below the diaphragm, multiple nodules seen in lung, lesions in liver. Bone marrow biopsy positive for DLBLC. Per Hematopoietic manual, primary site would be C778 for multiple lymph node regions involved. Mets at Dx--Bone-0 Mets at Dx--Brain-0 Mets at Dx--Liver-1 Mets at Dx--Lung-1 Mets at Dx--Distant Lymph Nodes-8 Mets at Dx--Other-1 |
2021 | |
|
|
20110005 | Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the pre-2010 histology coded for a "follicular grade 2, non-Hodgkin lymphoma with marginal zone B-cell differentiation"? See Discussion. | This patient was seen in 2010 for the same primary as diagnosed in 2006. The histology was coded to marginal zone lymphoma [9699/3] in 2006. Is this correct? Or should this have been coded as a follicular lymphoma, ignoring the modifying expression "marginal zone B-cell differentiation"? | This is a 2006 diagnosis. The histology code is 9691/3 [follicular lymphoma, grade 2]. Do not code differentiation for hematopoietic cases.
For diagnoses 2010 and forward, a small number of cases of follicular lymphoma do have marginal zone differentiation. However, there is no code for this variant of follicular lymphoma. It would simply be coded as a follicular lymphoma because that is the most accurate histology code available. The marginal zone differentiation is not to be coded as a second primary (marginal zone lymphoma). |
2011 |
|
|
20120057 | Reportability--Appendix: Is a low grade mucinous neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential with an in situ mucinous cystadenoma component reportable? See Discussion. | The patient was diagnosed with pseudomyxoma peritonei and the pathology report final diagnosis stated, "Low grade mucinous neoplasm, of uncertain malignant potential, involving a dilated appendix (5cm) with the following features: In situ mucinous cystadenoma component is identified, with low-grade cytology of neoplastic epithelium." Does the presence of an in situ component make this mucinous cystadenoma of the appendix reportable based on the ICD-O-3 matrix rule? | This diagnosis is not reportable. Cystadenoma is not reportable. The "in situ" description in this case does not make cystadenoma reportable.
According to our expert pathologist consultant, this is a "non-invasive, low grade, epithelial proliferation in an often cystic appendiceal tumor, 8480/1. If this has leaked or ruptured it can seed the peritoneal cavity causing pseudomyxoma peritonei." |
2012 |
|
|
20110126 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be accessioned, and what rule applies, when the patient has a history of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma diagnosed in 2003, a follicular lymphoma diagnosed in 2009, and another diagnosis of follicular lymphoma in 2010? Is the application of the multiple primary rules effected if it is unknown whether the patient was ever disease free? See Discussion. | Patient has a history of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma involving multiple lymph node regions (site C778) with bone marrow involvement diagnosed in 2003 and a history of follicular lymphoma confined to the thyroid and neck lymph nodes diagnosed in 2009. In 2010 the patient was diagnosed with follicular lymphoma in the inguinal and abdominal lymph nodes.
The 2003 diagnosis of DLBCL and the 2009 diagnosis of follicular lymphoma are the same primary according to the 2009 rules, the Single Versus Subsequent Primaries Table.
What rule is used to determine whether the 2010 diagnosis of follicular lymphoma represents a new primary? Which histologies are compared using the rules: the 2010 follicular lymphoma diagnosis to the 2009 follicular diagnosis or the 2010 follicular lymphoma diagnosis to the 2003 DLBCL diagnosis? |
This case should be accessioned as one primary.
Reportability is determined by the year of diagnosis. The original DLBCL was diagnosed in 2003 and the follicular lymphoma in 2009. The pre-2010 rules are used for both cases. Per the Single Versus Subsequent Primaries Table, these are the same primary. It is reported with the histology 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma]
Do not compare the DLBCL diagnosed in 2003 and the follicular lymphoma diagnosed in 2010 because the determination of the number of primaries for the two specific histologic types was done (as it should have been) using the rules in effect in 2009 when the follicular lymphoma was first diagnosed. The determination of a single or multiple primaries is made the first time the patient presents with the two different diseases; it is not changed when the same disease process reappears after 2010. |
2011 |
|
|
20130090 | MP/H Rules/Primary site/Histology--Colon/Rectum: How are the primary site and histology to be coded for a diagnosis of familial polyposis with malignant tumors in the sigmoid and rectum? See Discussion. | Preoperative diagnosis was familial polyposis with rectal and rectosigmoid cancer.
The pathology report from the colon resection showed:
Gross description: The mucosa of the colon is tan pink with polyposis throughout; more than 1000 tan sessile polyps.
Should this be a single primary per MP/H Rule M3, histology coded to 8220/3 [familial polyposis] per MP/H Rule H17, and primary site coded to C199? |
This case should be accessioned as a single primary. Code the primary site to the colon and rectum [C199] and the histology to adenocarcinoma in familial polyposis coli [8220/3] per MP/H Rule H17.
For cases of familial polyposis, when the rectosigmoid or rectum are involved, assign code C199 [colon and rectum]. When the rectosigmoid or rectum are not involved, assign code C189 [colon, NOS]. |
2013 |
|
|
20110118 | Reportability--Colon: Is a polypectomy that is suspicious for invasive adenocarcinoma followed by a partial colectomy with no residual neoplasm reportable? See Discussion. |
08/28/2009 Cecum biopsy showed an adenomatous polyp with focal areas suspicious for invasive adenocarcinoma. SINQ 20071060 states a suspicious biopsy that is disproven by a subsequent surgical procedure is not reportable. That does not seem to apply in this case because the patient had a suspicious finding on a surgical procedure (polypectomy), followed by a second surgical procedure that was negative. Is it possible that the polypectomy removed the entire tumor and the suspicious diagnosis should be reported? |
This case is reportable. It is possible that the polypectomy removed the entire tumor. Invasive carcinoma in a polyp does not mean that is has invaded the stalk of the polyp. If the stalk is not invaded, all of the cancer may have been removed by a polypectomy. |
2011 |
|
|
20071056 | Reportability/Terminology--Prostate: Is the diagnosis of "atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma" sufficient to report a prostate cancer if a note states that there is "insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy"? See Discussion. | Date of report is July 2005. One positive specimen of 12. Specimen 6: Diagnosis = Prostate tissue with a small focus of atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma. Note. There is insufficient cytologic and/or architectural atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy. Negative basal cell staining with cytokeratin... in atypical glands is consistent with the diagnosis of suspicious for adenocarcinoma. In addition, the diagnosis is suppported by a positive staining for alpha-methyl COA racemase (P504S), a recently discovered marker that is preferentially expressed in prostate cancer... |
This case is reportable. The diagnosis states "suspicious for adenocarcinoma." "Suspicious for" is a reportable ambiguous term.
The additional stains supported this "suspicious" diagnosis. A more definitive diagnosis could not be made based on this specimen. |
2007 |
An official website of the United States government
