Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20150009 | Multiple Primaries/Behavior--Lung: When a patient has an invasive lung primary, how do in situ tumors of the lung affect the determination of multiple primaries? See discussion. |
How many primaries should be reported when a 12/19/14 RUL lung wedge resection shows: 2.0 cm invasive adenocarcinoma (8140/3) and an additional RUL wedge resection during the same procedure shows: multifocal adenocarcinoma in situ (bronchioloalveolar carcinoma), non-mucinous type (8252/2) size: 1 mm – 2 mm; followed by a 2/12/15 left upper lobectomy also showing Adenocarcinoma, invasive at several foci, with a prominent bronchioloalveolar (in situ) component….tumor focality: multifocal (10 cm mass, 6 cm mass and numerous smaller foci)? |
Most often when the invasive tumor and the in situ component are in the same lung and are the same histology, rule M12 (example 3) applies and this is a single primary. If the first wedge resection included part of the tumor and the in situ was not separate from the tumor, it is a single primary. We suspect that the margins were positive on the first wedge specimen which prompted the second wedge resection where the in situ was found. In addition, terminology for lung malignancies is undergoing change: what was called BAC (invasive) is now called adenocarcinoma in situ. |
Lung | Behavior | 2015 |
|
|
20220041 | Primary Site/Histology--Intrahepatic Duct: How are primary site and histology coded for cholangiocarcinoma cases when the pathology only shows a liver tumor and other involvement. See Discussion. |
A common scenario is a patient has a positive CT of the abdomen/pelvis for liver mass only. Biopsy of the liver mass is positive for cholangiocarcinoma. The physician is also calling the liver tumor the primary site with histology of cholangiocarcinoma. There is no evidence of intrahepatic bile duct (C221) or gallbladder (C240) involvement which are sites specific to this histology. The hematology/oncology consult stages this as Stage IIIA, T3N0M0 intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Can we code cholangiocarcinoma with site code C220 (liver) or should we assume that C221 (intrahepatic bile ducts) would be a better code to reflect this histology? |
Assign C221 (intrahepatic bile duct) as the primary site for cholangiocarcinoma (8160/3). Our expert GI pathologist confirms that even when intrahepatic bile ducts are not specifically mentioned, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma originates in the intrahepatic bile ducts. |
Liver | Histology, Primary site | 2022 |
|
|
20230073 | First Course Treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Liver/Intrahepatic Bile Ducts: For a liver/intrahepatic bile duct primary, is an alcohol embolization the same thing as a percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI)? See Discussion. |
For C220-C221 primaries, Surgery of Primary Site includes code A150 for Alcohol tumor destruction (percutaneous ethanol injection/intratumoral injection of alcohol/alcohol ablation). The SEER and STORE manuals also indicate that alcohol embolization should be coded as Other Therapy, code 1. We are trying to determine whether alcohol embolization should be coded under Surgery of Primary Site or Other Therapy. |
Code alcohol ablation under Surgery of Primary Site 2023. Code alcohol embolization as Other Therapy when tumor embolization is performed using alcohol as the embolizing agent. Alcohol ablation, also known as an ultrasound-guided percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI); is treatment that involves injecting concentrated alcohol directly into the tumor. Embolization uses special techniques to close off blood flow by introducing special medications or using other techniques designed to block blood vessels. Types of embolization are arterial embolization as with alcohol (ethanol), chemoembolization, and radioembolization. Refer to the current SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual when assigning surgery and embolization procedures. |
Liver | First course treatment, Surgery of Primary Site | 2023 |
|
|
20100107 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney, renal pelvis: How is histology coded for a tumor described as "renal cell carcinoma, clear cell with rhabdoid features"? See Discussion. | Is the statement "with __ features" indicative of a specific type of renal cell carcinoma (that is not represented by a specific histology code) or a second histologic type? Per ICD-O, "malignant rhabdoid tumor" is coded 8963/3. "Rhabdoid" is not listed in Table 1 in the MP/H rules as a specific type of renal cell carcinoma. |
Rhabdoid features occur in about 5% of all renal cell cancers and indicate a more aggressive tumor. Per WHO, these tumors comprise approximately 2% of all pediatric tumors with a median diagnosis age of 1-2 years old. This diagnosis is highly suspect in patients over age 3. Most previously reported rhabdoid tumors over age 5 have subsequently proven to be renal medullary carcinomas.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, if the patient in this case is a child, apply Kidney Rule H7 and code histology to 8963/3 [malignant rhaboid tumor]. Otherwise, we strongly suggest you consult with the pathologist to determine if this is truly a rhabdoid rather than a medullary tumor. |
Kidney, renal pelvis | Histology | 2010 |
|
|
20031160 | EOD-Extension--Kidney: How would this field be coded when the pathology report shows a 20 mm surface neoplasm with smaller yellow metastatic implants on the surface of the kidney?" | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code extension as 10 [Invasive cancer confined to kidney cortex]. Tumor involves the cortical surface of the kidney with separate surface lesions, but does not extend beyond cortex. | Kidney, renal pelvis | N/A | 2003 | |
|
|
20091009 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney: How do you code histology for a renal cell carcinoma when pathologists disagree as to whether or not the tumor is consistent with thyroid-like follicular carcinoma of the kidney? See Discussion. | Final diagnosis states 'left radical nephrectomy, renal cell carcinoma.' The CAP Histologic Type is listed as: Unclassified, most consistent with primary thyroid-like follicular carcinoma of the kidney.' Because of the unusual histology it was sent for a consult to a genitourinary pathology specialist. His response was: 'histologic features not typical for any of the known subtypes of renal cell carcinoma and are not consistent with primary thyroid-like follicular carcinoma of the kidney, a distinct renal tumor that we have recently published in the literature.' The tumor was TTF-1 negative, arguing against metastasis from a thyroid primary. | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8312 [renal cell carcinoma, NOS]. The diagnosis is renal cell carcinoma, but the specific type is in question. | Kidney, renal pelvis | Histology | 2009 |
|
|
20160048 | Reportability--Kidney: Is renal cell neoplasm of oncocytosis reportable based on the pathology from a nephrectomy? See Discussion. |
The pathology diagnosis reads: Diagnosis Right Kidney, Laparoscopic Nephrectomy:
-Renal Cell Neoplasm of Oncocytosis (pT1a, pNX See Comment and Template).
-Surgical margins free of tumor.
Kidney, right, nephrectomy:
Tumor histologic type: Renal cell neoplasms of oncocytosis (see Note)
Sarcomatoid features (%) Not identified
Tumor size: 4 cm (greatest dimension largest tumor)
Other dimensions: 2.7 x 2.5 cm
Macroscopic extent of tumor: Limited to kidney
Focality: Multifocal
Number of tumors: 11 grossly visible, range 0.2 4 cm
Fuhrman grade: 2 of 4
Microscopic extent of tumor:
Perinephric fat invasion: Not identified
Renal sinus invasion: Not identified
Other: N/A
Renal vein involvement: Not identified
Adrenal gland present: No
Involved by tumor: N/A
Direct invasion or metastasis: N/A
Cancer at resection margin: Not identified
Location(s): N/A
Pathologic findings in nonneoplastic kidney: Multiple collections of oncocytic cells
Hilar lymph nodes present: No
Number of involved/number present: N/A
"Thank you for sending this fascinating case. In reviewing the H&E-stained slides, we recognize that multiple lesions of varying sizes are present within the specimen, some with features of oncocytoma, some with those of chromophobe RCC, and yet others with features of both. The immunohistochemical studies for CK7 performed at your institution serve to highlight this point with "mass #1" showing focal single cell staining typical of oncocytoma and "mass #2" showing a patchy and confluent staining pattern typical of chromophobe RCC. This second mass was also positive with special stain for Hales colloidal iron. As mentioned, the morphology varies somewhat in each tumor, however, every single mass is comprised of cells with eosinophilic (pink to bright red) cytopolasm. Some tumors show more tightly nested or sheet like growth, others are more tubular or microcystic. Another important feature, present on slides of renal cortex are microscopic tumorlets seemingly emanating from eosinophilic tubules. This finding, along with the presence of numerous oncocytic neoplasms is supportive of the above diagnosis. The absence of clinical features to suggest Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome is noted. Although these tumors are not recognized in the current classification of renal tumors, we regard these neoplasms as being a distinct entity, unrelated to both oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, and have applied the designation "renal tumor of oncocytosis" to such lesions (Gobbo S, et al. Renal cell neoplasms of oncocytosis have distinct morphologic, immunohistochemical, and cytogenetic profiles. Am J Surg Patholl 34:620-626, 2010). We concur that the expected behavior in these cases is one of indolence." |
Do not report Renal cell neoplasms of oncocytosis. According to our expert pathologist consultant, these neoplasms do not behave "in a malignant fashion." They are not currently classified as malignant and are not reportable to cancer registries. |
Kidney, renal pelvis | N/A | 2016 |
|
|
20010132 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Kidney: What code is used to represent the histology "renal cell carcinoma with granular cell morphology"? Kidney primary with diagnosis of renal cell CA with granular cell morphology. Do we code as granular cell carcinoma? Is the term "morphology" synonymous with "type"? See discussion. | Do we code this type of tumor as a granular cell carcinoma [8580/3]? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8320/3 [granular cell carcinoma]. Renal cell carcinoma is a non-specific term that has several specific cellular subtypes, one of which is granular cell [8320/3].
Note: Do not code to granular cell tumor [9580/3], which is not a histology related to renal cell carcinoma.
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. |
Kidney, renal pelvis | Histology | 2001 |
|
|
20130204 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney, renal pelvis: How is histology coded for a tubulocystic renal cell carcinoma? See Discussion. | Per the resected specimen final diagnosis COMMENT in the pathology report: Tubulocystic renal cell carcinoma is a relatively new renal epithelial neoplasm that has been added to an updated WHO classification of renal tumors. (Srigley et al. The International Society of Urologic Pathology Vancouver Classification of Renal Neoplasia Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37:1469-1489). The majority of tubulocystic renal cell carcinomas reported in the literature (greater than 90%) have behaved in an indolent manner. | Code the histology to 8312/3 [renal cell carcinoma, NOS] per Rule H3. The term "tubulocystic" is not a specific renal cell histology according to our kidney pathology expert. | Kidney, renal pelvis | Histology | 2013 |
|
|
20160062 | Grade--Kidney: Should WHO/ISUP grade for renal cell carcinoma be coded for cases diagnosed 2016 and later? See discussion.
|
The 2016 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System appears to be moving away from using Fuhrman grading toward using WHO/ISUP grade. These seem like similar 4 grade staging systems; however, the SEER Manual specifically states to not use the Special Grade System table for WHO/ISUP. We are seeing the WHO/ISUP grade being used on 2016 pathology reports.
Examples of new grading for renal cell carcinomas Histologic type: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma Histologic grade (WHO/ISUP 2016): Grade 3 in a background of 2 (of 4). And Histologic type: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma Histologic grade (ISUP): Grade 2. |
Do not record WHO/ISUP grade in the grade/differentiation field.
Designated fields for this grade system are being proposed for future implementation. |
Kidney, renal pelvis | N/A | 2016 |
An official website of the United States government
