System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 10/07/2026 19:01 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20190085

Primary site/Histology: Are the 2018 ICD-O Histology Update topography codes intended to specify the most common sites for these new codes and can the histology be coded if they occur in other sites? See Discussion.

Example 1: Endometrial biopsy final diagnosis is high-grade serous adenocarcinoma. Should we code this endometrial primary with histology 8441 (serous adenocarcinoma) because C54.X topography code is not listed in the applicable 2018 ICD-O-3 codes Histology Update for the new morphology, or should we apply the new histology code 8461 (high-grade serous carcinoma)?

The NAACCR implementation guideline section 2.3 includes an important reminder that: Many of the new codes, terms, and behaviors listed in this update are site-specific and do not apply to all sites. Applicable C codes will be noted next to the term in bold font.

However, this is followed by the more ambiguous instruction for edits that appear to imply the combination with non-listed sites is possible: These site- and histology-specific combinations will not be added to the Impossible combination edit. However, if a site other than the one listed with the morphology code is assigned, the result will be an edit requiring review. This is Interfield Edit 25.

The NAACCR Guidelines for ICD-O-3 Histology Code and Behavior Update Implementation, effective January 1, 2018, state: Currently in ICD-O-3, when a topography (C code) is listed in parentheses next to the morphology term, it indicates morphology is most common to that site. It may occur in other sites as well. Many of the new codes, terms, and behaviors listed in this update are site-specific and do not apply to all sites.

Please review the Comments to determine which histology codes are specific to sites. You may use sites not listed as the suggested site; however, it will generate an edit error for review and verification of the appropriate site.

 N/A Histology, Primary site 2019
20190095

Reportability/Histology--Thymus: Is a thymoma a malignancy if described as having separate tumor nodules within peri-thymic adipose tissue? See Discussion.

Patient had a thymectomy including pericardial fat for a mediastinal mass found incidentally during lung screening. Final diagnosis is WHO B3 thymoma. Staging Summary lists transcapsular invasion: "Present, as separate tumor nodules within peri-thymic adipose tissue." Tumor extension is stated to be "Confined to thymus, including peri-thymic adipose tissue." The pathologist staged this resection as pT1a pNX with no mention of mets. Clinically, there are no noted metastatic sites and no further treatment is planned.

Report this case as a malignant thymoma. Our expert pathologist consultant reviewed this case and in his opinion, the "separate tumor nodules within peri-thymic adipose tissue" fit registry reporting criteria for separate tumor nodules making this a malignant thymoma.

 N/A Histology 2019
20200018

Reportability: Is ASIN-H (high-grade anal squamous intraepithelial neoplasia) equivalent to anal intraepithelial neoplasia, III (AIN III)?

High-grade anal squamous intraepithelial neoplasia (ASIN-H) is synonynous with anal intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III (AIN III).

 N/A N/A 2020
20150059

Primary Site--Liver: What is the topography code for combined hepatocellular carcinoma/cholangiocarcinoma (M-8180/3) especially when there is no documentation that intrahepatic bile duct is the tumor site? Reports usually just indicate a liver mass(es) but since the intrahepatic ducts are within the liver, is the code C221 due to the cholangiocarcinoma component, thus making the case stageable?

If there is no further information about where the cancer originated, assign C220. Use ICD-O-3 as the source for coding topography. The topography code associated with combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma (8180/3) is C220 when there is no other information available, according to ICD-O-3.

N/A Primary site 2015
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.

 N/A N/A 2017
20200025

Reportability/Ambiguous terminology--Bone: Is a case reportable when the imaging described a left first rib mass as ? See Discussion.

The radiologist noted the mass was most compatible with a chondroid lesion, which is not reportable on its own, but can the subsequent term be used to accession this as reportable if only one malignant etiology is provided by the radiologist? Or does the statement imply that this is only one of several possible etiologies?

Review this case with the involved physicians to determine their opinion on the bone mass. Review the plans for further evaluation and treatment (if any) to determine whether the physicians view this case as a chondroid lesion, chondrosarcoma, or something else.

If it is not possible to obtain further information, do not report the case at this time. If further information becomes available, review the case again for reportability.

 N/A N/A 2020
20200027

Reportability--Ambiguous Terminology: Should either of the terms, strongly characteristic of or most certainly, be used to accession a case as reportable when they are used to describe a malignancy and no other information is available? See Discussion.

SINQ 20130140 indicates a histologic diagnosis that is characteristic of a specified malignancy is reportable because this is equivalent to the term, diagnostic of. Does the same logic apply to a clinical diagnosis that is strongly characteristic of a malignancy on imaging?

SINQ 20180104 indicates the term, almost certainly, is not a reportable ambiguous term. If a radiologist notes a mass was most certainly malignant, is this adequate to accession this as reportable? Is a clinically certain diagnosis equivalent to diagnostic of? Or are the modifiers almost and most irrelevant because the terms certainly and certain are not on the ambiguous terminology list?

Look for more information. What is the plan for each of these patients? Consult with the physician and search for further information to assist with the decision. If no further information can be obtained, accession both of these cases based on the imaging reports. If more information becomes available later, review and revise as applicable.

 N/A N/A 2020
20110038

Reportability/Behavior: Is a "minimally invasive thymoma" a reportable malignancy if the pathology report does not specifically state it is malignant? See Discussion.

For example, are Types A, B1, B2 and B3 reportable if the pathology report does not state the tumor is a "Malignant Thymoma"?

For cases diagnosed prior to 2021

According to our expert pathologist consultant, code using the terms in the pathology report. Do not try to second guess the pathologist.

  1. Thymomas are /1 and not reportable unless the pathologist states "malignant". This includes A, AB, B1, B2, and B3. Any one of these types of tumors may exhibit invasion but do not code /3 based only on invasion.

  • Code thymoma as /3 if specifically designated "malignant" by the pathologist.

  • Thymic carcinoma and any of its subtypes are malignant, /3.

    		•  N/A Behavior 2011
    		20110002 Surgery of Primary Site--Penis: How is CO2 laser treatment coded for penile cancer? Assign code 14 [laser] for CO2 laser treatment given for primary penile cancer. The CO2 is the method used to deliver the laser. N/A Surgery of Primary Site 2011
    		20200046

    Reportability--Vulva: Is well differentiated vulvar intraepithelial neoplasm (dVIN) reportable? See Discussion.

    Is this histologic terminology synonymous with 8071/2 Differentiated-type vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia?

    Per the 7/20/2018 updates to the 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology list, the reportability flag was changed from N to Y for Differentiated-type vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia as well as Differentiated penile intraepithelial neoplasia, both 8071/2. It appears that both SINQ 20180020 and the second half of SINQ 20160069 are no longer valid and should be deleted.

    Report well-differentiated vulvar intraepithelial neoplasm (8071/2). Our expert pathologist consultant regards this as reportable. Well-differentiated is synonymous with differentiated in this context.

    The older SINQ questions have been removed.

    		 N/A N/A 2020