Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20120060 | Primary Site/Reportability: What is the primary site and reportability status of a "pancreatic endocrine neoplasm" that arises in the heterotopic pancreas of the splenic hilum that is stated to be a "well-differentiated endocrine tumor, uncertain behavior per the WHO classification"? See Discussion. | SINQ 20120035 states that well differentiated pancreatic endocrine neoplasms should be reported with histology code 8240/3. However, the pathology report provides the WHO Classification which states "uncertain behavior." Should this tumor still be reported as 8240/3?
If reportable, how is the primary site coded? The tumor arose in heterotopic pancreas (in the splenic hilum), which is pancreatic tissue found outside the usual anatomical location of the pancreas. Per the pathology report, the tumor did not invade the spleen. Should the primary site be coded to C48.1 [mesentery]? The patient is female and the coding schema for "Peritoneum for Females" would apply to the case. However, none of those CS extension codes seem to apply to this localized case.
|
This case is reportable. Code the primary site to C25.9 [pancreas, NOS] and the histology to 8240/3 [neuroendocrine tumor (NET), Grade 1].
Per the 2012 SEER Manual, code the site in which the primary tumor originated. This neoplasm arose in pancreatic tissue and will behave accordingly, even though this pancreatic tissue is not located in the usual place.
Pancreatic endocrine and neuroendocrine neoplasms are essentially the same thing. However, they are described in two different WHO classifications; the endocrine classification and the digestive system classification. The digestive system classification is more recent, and is preferred by our expert pathologist consultant. The term "neuroendocrine" is to be used now, rather than "endocrine." In the pancreas, "well differentiated endocrine tumor" is synonymous with "neuroendocrine tumor (NET) Grade 1" and is coded 8240/3. |
2012 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20081009 | Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation: If a physician signs a case out as "precancerous melanosis of the face" (8741/2) and there is no microscopic confirmation of the disease, is this a reportable clinical diagnosis? |
This case is reportable because the diagnosis of precancerous melanosis was stated by a recognized medical practitioner. Precancerous melanosis meets the reportable diagnosis criteria (See 2007 SEER Manual page 1). Assign diagnostic confirmation code 8 [clinical diagnosis only]. Set the appropriate override flag for the SEER edit. |
2008 | |
|
|
20071129 | Reportability/Histology: Is a case reportable if the Final Diagnosis in a pathology report indicates a non reportable diagnosis but the Diagnosis Comment on the same report indicates a non reportable diagnosis followed by a reportable diagnosis in parenthesis? See Discussion. |
08/13/2007 polypectomy final diagnosis: tubulovillous adenoma with severe epithelial atypia. Dx Comment (on same path) ...atypia including focal cribriform glandular architecture (carcinoma in situ). |
This case is reportable as carcinoma in situ. The histology code is 8263/2 [adenocarcinoma in situ in a tubulovillous adenoma]. According to our pathologist consultant, a "comment" in a path report is a part of the diagnosis - it often elaborates on or clarifies the diagnosis. Placing [carcinoma in situ] in the comment, even in parentheses, indicates that is the appropriate diagnosis for our purposes. |
2007 |
|
|
20081084 | Reportability: Is a tubular adenoma reportable if the final diagnosis is "high grade atypia" and the diagnosis comment is "atypia limited to muscularis mucosa areas of pseudostratification [formerly qualifying for carcinoma in situ]"? |
This case is not reportable. The pathologist would need to include "carcinoma in situ" as part of the final diagnosis in order for this case to be reportable. |
2008 | |
|
|
20100106 | Reportability-Bladder: Is a case with a cytology diagnosis, "positive for malignancy, favor low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma" reportable if the diagnosis on a subsequent bladder biopsy showed only "urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential"? See Discussion. | On 11/23/09 the patient had urine cytology diagnosis "positive for malignancy, favor low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma." On 12/28/09, the bladder biopsy showed "urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential."
SINQ 20081086 only addresses the example of a positive FNA/biopsy followed by a negative resection. Would the previous decision hold for this case when a positive fine needle aspiration biopsy is followed by only a negative biopsy? |
This case is not reportable. The pathology proved the cytology to be incorrect. The pathologic diagnosis is the "gold standard." When cytology and pathology disagree, use pathology.
|
2010 |
|
|
20130073 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is Rosai-Dorfman disease a neoplastic reportable disease process if it occurs in the brain? See Discussion. |
The pathology report diagnosis is: Cranium, right temporal area, resection of intradural, extra-axial mass: Severe acute and chronic inflammation, histiocytic reaction, and proliferative fibrosis. See comment. Comment: Among potential alternative considerations are an infectious process, or non-infectious inflammatory CNS lesions such as inflammatory pseudotumor, Rosai-Dorfman disease, plasma cell granuloma, idiopathic hypertrophic pachymeningitis, and inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor. The clinicians discuss this and review other chart information and conclude the patient has a clinical diagnosis of Rosai-Dorfman disease. This is a rare disorder characterized by proliferation of histiocytes. |
This case is not reportable. Rosai-Dorfman disease is not listed in the ICD-O-3. To be reportable, a neoplasm must be listed in the ICD-O-3 and originate in a reportable brain/CNS site. |
2013 |
|
|
20190010 | Reportability/Histology--Bladder: Is papillary urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential (PUNLMP) (8130/1) reportable when also referred to as papillary transitional cell carcinoma, grade 1, no invasion (8130/2) previously? See Discussion. |
The pathology report reads: Urinary bladder, tumor over right ureteral orifice, biopsy: Urinary bladder mucosa (urothelium) and submucosa (lamina propria), with papillary urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential (previously known as papillary transitional cell carcinoma, grade 1 of 3), no invasion identified. |
This case is not reportable. PUNLMP (8130/1) is the diagnosis stated by the pathologist for this case and PUNLMP is not reportable. The information in parentheses is informational in this case and does not change the pathologist's diagnosis. According to WHO Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs, 4th edition, there is variation of architectural and cytological features between PUNLMP and papillary urothelial carcinoma, low grade, reflecting grading changes from an older classification system. |
2019 |
|
|
20170029 | Reportability--Bone: Are giant cell tumors (GCT) of the bone that metastasize to the lung reportable? See Discussion. |
Patient had radical resection of pelvic giant cell tumor of bone in August 2012. Final diagnosis clarified that no features to suggest a frankly malignant giant cell tumor were identified. July 2013 left upper lobe nodules were removed and found to be consistent with multifocal metastatic lung involvement with a previous pelvic giant cell tumor of bone. However, the pathology report comment specifies there are no histological high-grade features to suggest a malignancy: While SINQ 20091087 may apply, these metastases clearly arrived in the lung by hematogenous spread. The previous SINQ note refers to a case where the implants/metastases can seed the surrounding pelvic and abdominal structures by rupture of the tumor or intraoperative tumor spillage. That type of spread is not quite the same as the current case showing tumor cells leaving the primary tumor/site and travelling through the blood to implant in the lungs. |
This case is not reportable. According to the WHO Classification of Bone Tumors, pulmonary metastases from GCTs are "very slow-growing and are thought to represent pulmonary implants that result from embolization of intravascular growths of GCT. Some of these benign pulmonary implants can regress spontaneously. A small number, however, exhibit progressive enlargement and can lead to the death of the patient." The pathologist for this case is very clear that no malignancy was found in the lung or in the bone. |
2017 |
|
|
20160019 | Reportability--Lung: Is a case of pulmonary metastatic leiomyoma (favored) vs. low grade leiomyosarcoma reportable, and if so, what is the primary site and histology code? See Discussion. |
Patient presents with an abnormal chest x-ray. PET reveals 4.6 cm left lower lobe mass and several additional bilateral nodules measuring up to 1.6 cm. Biopsy was recommended and is positive for metastatic histologically benign smooth muscle neoplasm. ER/PR are positive. Mayo consult on biopsy agrees with histology. The differential diagnosis includes benign metastasizing leiomyoma and low grade leiomyosarcoma. Comment: If these nodules remain small and do not progressively grow would consider this metastasizing leiomyoma. Physicians state bilateral pulmonary metastatic leiomyoma (favored) vs low grade leiomyosarcoma. Tamoxifen was started. Patient has a history of uterine fibroids. Several months later, imaging reveals stable bilateral multi pulmonary nodules and left lower lobe mass but persistent. Surgery was recommended but cancelled due to insurance. |
This case is not reportable based on the information provided. The histologic diagnosis is "metastatic histologically benign smooth muscle neoplasm." The physicians seem to agree with the histologic diagnosis, benign metastasizing leiomyoma (BML). The WHO classification and ICD-O-3 assign 8898/1 to "metastasizing leiomyoma." WHO states "This resembles a typical leiomyoma but it is found in the lungs of women with a history of typical uterine leiomyomas." A recent article states "Because of the hormone-sensitive characteristics of BML, treatments are based on hormonal manipulation along with either surgical or medical oophorectomy." Tamoxifen treatment is in keeping with the BML diagnosis. |
2016 |
An official website of the United States government
