Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20061086 | Reportability--Melanoma: Is an excisional biopsy of the skin with a diagnosis on the pathology report of "Tumoral melanosis" reportable by itself or must there be a pathologist note, such as "Note: Unless proven otherwise, tumoral melanosis should be considered as a regressed melanoma", in order for it to be reportable? See Discussion. |
Skin, left upper back, exc Bx: Tumoral melanosis. Note: Unless proven otherwise, tumoral melanosis should be considered as a regressed melanoma. If reportable, do we report a diagnosis of tumoral melanosis without a similar note? |
Tumoral melanosis (TM) alone is not reportable. It is not listed in ICD-O-3. TM can be associated with a regressed melanoma, but it can also occur with other cutaneous tumors. The case is reportable if there is a diagnosis of melanoma. |
2006 |
|
|
20031116 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can the term "filling defect" be used to code tumor size? See Description. |
Site: Bladder CT abd/pelvis: 4 cm filling defect of the bladder encasing jetstream of distal ureter. 2-3 cm lesion may be extension to bladder. KUB: 3-4 cm filling defect within bladder. Cystoscopy: large bladder tumor with small tumor extending out of the large tumor. OP Findings: Large tumor on right of bladder extending from bladder neck lateral and posterior Pathology: TURB: High grade TCC, Grade III with focal lamina propria invasion. |
For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:
Information on size from imaging/radiographic techniques can be used to code size when there is no more specific size information from a pathology or operative report, but it should be taken as low priority, just above a physical exam. The term "filling defect" from a CT or KUB may be used to code tumor size for bladder in the absence of more reliable size information from path, operative or endoscopic reports. |
2003 |
|
|
20210004 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Colon: What is the histology for a 2020 pathology report final diagnosis showing invasive adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated with signet ring cell features and signet-ring cell carcinoma in the synoptic report? See Discussion. |
Since the synoptic report and final diagnosis are equal in priority, and the Solid Tumor Rules tell us to code the more specific histology, would this be coded to signet ring cell adenocarcinoma, 8490/3, even though the pathologist used features in the final diagnosis? There is no histology adenocarcinoma with signet ring cell features on the CAP Protocol, so the pathologist may check off the next closest histology " signet ring cell carcinoma " which would not be truly representative of the actual histology. Final Diagnosis: Proximal colon, segmental resection: Invasive adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated, with signet ring cell features. Synoptic Report A: Colon and Rectum - Resection Specimen Procedure: Right hemicolectomy, Tumor Site: Right (ascending) colon, Histologic Type: Signet-ring cell carcinoma, Histologic Grade: G3: Poorly differentiated. |
Code histology to 8490/3 per H6. The December 2020 Solid Tumor Update includes addition of the following instructions to the "Priority Order for Using Documentation to Code Histology" section. Which document to use when there is conflicting information between the final diagnosis, synoptic report, or CAP protocol: When there are discrepancies between the final diagnosis and synoptic report, use the document that provides the more specific histology. This will likely be found in the synoptic report. The CAP Protocol should be used only when a final diagnosis or synoptic report are not available. Definitions for CAP Protocol, final diagnosis, and synoptic report can be found in the Definitions section. |
2021 |
|
|
20230027 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Peripheral Nerves: How many primaries should be abstracted, and which M Rule applies, when a malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (MPNST) in the right arm (C471) is followed greater than one year later by a separate malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor of the thoracic chest wall (C473)? See Discussion. |
Since the peripheral nerves are included in the Malignant CNS schema of the Solid Tumor Rules, neither the differences in subsite nor timing indicate these are separate primaries (Rule M10 indicates a single primary). However, these are separate MPNSTs in different sites and the tumors are not stated to be metastasis. Additionally, these are treated as separate primaries by the managing physician. While the malignant CNS tumors do not take timing into account, is this correct for these peripheral nerve tumors that are often treated similarly to soft tissue tumors? Should Rule M8 be updated to include tumors in different peripheral nerve subsites? |
Abstract a single primary using Solid Tumor Rules, Malignant CNS and Peripheral Nerves, Rule M10 based on the information provided. Rule M10 applies as both non-contiguous tumors are of the same histology; i.e., on the same row in Table 3. As MPNST can arise in many sites, look for information about the precise location and tissue type in which the tumor arose. For example, if the tumors are stated to arise in soft tissue, follow the Multiple Primary Rules for Other Sites. Both WHO Classification of Central Nervous System Tumors and WHO Classification of Soft Tissue and Bone Tumors state that MPNST is a malignant spindle cell tumor often arising from a peripheral nerve, from a pre-existing benign nerve sheath tumor, or in a patient with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1). Future updates will move C470-C479 from CNS to other sites module. |
2023 |
|
|
20180022 | Reportability/Histology: Is a focal high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL/moderate to severe dysplasia/VIN II-III) in the vulva reportable for cases diagnosed in 2018? See discussion. |
Since high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HGSIL) is reportable for the vulva in 2018 (per SINQ 20130185) but VIN II-III is not reportable, we need to clarify this reporting format seen in our area. |
Report when stated to be high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion of the vulva. The 2018 SEER Manual says to assign 8077/2. HGSIL is a synonym for squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III for vulva and vagina only. |
2018 |
|
|
20170034 | Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: Would you code a unilateral breast simple mastectomy with tissue expanders and AlloDerm or an acellular dermal matrix as Code 45, Reconstruction with Implant, or Code 46, Reconstruction with Combined Tissue and Implant? See Discussion. |
Since acellular dermal matrix/AlloDerm comes from human tissue donors with cells removed and sterilized to promote regenesis and decrease rejection, is Alloderm coded as "Tissue' as it also "provides an additional layer of tissue between the skin and the implant? |
Assign code 43 for a simple mastectomy with tissue expanders and acellular dermal matrix/AlloDerm. The tissue expander indicates preparation for reconstruction. The acellular dermal matrix/AlloDerm is not coded because, while they often accompany an implant procedure, they are not the principle element of reconstructive procedures. The principle elements would be tissue from the patient and/or prosthetics (e.g., gel implants). |
2017 |
|
|
20210015 | Solid Tumor Rules (2007/2021)/Multiple Primaries--Anus: Have the disease free interval criteria been met for the following case scenario. A patient was diagnosed with anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) III in 7/2018 that was treated with local tumor destruction, followed by Pap smears and biopsies that prove AIN I or AIN II through 2020, before being diagnosed with a reportable AIN II or AIN III in 2021. See Discussion. |
Since AIN I is not reportable and AIN II is not reportable until 2021, we are not sure if we can say the patient was disease free because there was no intervening reportable tumor (AIN III), or was never disease free because there was evidence of related disease (lower grade dysplasia). |
The 2021 AIN III is not a new primary. According to our GI pathology expert, findings of AIN I and/or AIN II following a diagnosis of AIN III indicates the patient was never NED and indicates persistent disease. . |
2021 |
|
|
20180069 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Behavior--Brain and CNS: The Behavior coding instructions in the Non-Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) Equivalent Terms and Definitions section refer to Table 1 for help coding behavior when the other priority order instructions do not apply; however, the behavior cannot be reasonably determined using Table 1 alone for all WHO Grade I neoplasms. Should an additional default, such as the ICD-O-3 or Tables 5 and 6, be used to determine behavior? See Discussion. |
Similar to an issue previously submitted SINQ 20180063, Table 1 (WHO Grades of Select CNS Neoplasms) in the Non-Malignant CNS Equivalent Terms and Definitions section states WHO Grade I tumors are always non-malignant. However, this does not mean that the tumors listed in Table 1 as WHO Grade I are always benign (/0). Some tumors listed with a WHO Grade I have a behavior of /1 (borderline) per the ICD-O-3 and/or Tables 5 and 6. The Behavior coding instructions do not currently indicate these are the appropriate sources to use when the pathologist and/or physician do not comment on the behavior of these tumors. In our area, pathologists do not explicitly state the behavior for these tumors; the pathologist only assigns the WHO Grade. |
There is no way for us to know what behavior to assign WHO grade II tumors when the pathologist does not provide that information. Defaulting to either benign or malignant is incorrect. Please follow back with the pathologist to determine behavior. The behavior must be non-malignant, meaning /0 or /1, or the tumor is a WHO Grade 1, to be reportable as non-malignant CNS tumor. Refer to Table Instructions under Table 1, WHO Grades of Select CNS Neoplasms that says to use non-malignant CNS rules for all WHO Grade 1 tumors and to use the appropriate rules for WHO Grade 2 tumors Use ICD-O and all updates if not listed in Table 6 according to non-malignant CNS Histology Rule H3 (for single tumor) and Rule H8 (for multiple tumors) when only one histology is present. |
2018 |
|
|
20031119 | EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Colon: For this primary, under which field are satellite tumor nodules in mesenteric adipose tissue coded? See Description. | Sigmoid colon, low anterior resection: Invasive adenocarcinoma, 5.5 cm greastest dimension, moderately differentiated. Tumor invades through muscularis propria, into mesenteric adipose tissue. No penetration of visceral peritoneum. Proximal, distal, and radial margins free of tumor. Satellite tumor nodule present within mesenteric adipose tissue, 1.5 cm diameter, located 2.8 cm from main bowel wall tumor. Ten lymph nodes identified, with no evidence of metastatic tumor.
Comment: The satellite tumor nodule present within the mesenteric adipose tissue has an infiltrating, irregular contoured appearance and does not appear to represent a previously replaced lymph node. This appears to be a local metastasis with histologic features most commonly associated with venous invasion (see AJCC Cancer Staging Handbook, Sixth Edition, 2002, page 131 for current staging terminology). |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: For EOD, each grossly detectable nodule in the regional mesenteric fat is counted as one regional lymph node. | 2003 |
|
|
20120008 | MP/H Rules/Recurrence--Ovary: How many primaries are accessioned if a patient was diagnosed with ovarian serous carcinoma four years ago and currently has sacral and pelvic masses positive for serous carcinoma on biopsy? Should this be disease progression or a new primary? See Discussion. |
Should this be a new primary per the MP/H Rules (Other Sites, Rule M10) because the diagnoses were made more than one year apart? Or is the new disease metastasis? The pathologist did not compare the subsequent mass biopsies with the original pathology. Is a pathologist's comparison of slides the only criteria for determining recurrent disease? This case seems to fit the definition of metastatic disease rather than a recurrence, and therefore would not be a new primary. |
Accession a single primary, the original ovarian serous carcinoma. The MP/H Rules do not apply to metastases. Metastases: When cancer cells appear in other nodes or organs that are not the primary site they are metastatic cells. Discontinuous (separate from the primary tumor) masses or cells in regional lymph nodes, distant lymph nodes, or distant sites are always metastases. In this case, the sacral and pelvic masses are distant metastases. The pathologist does not have to compare cells to the original tumor slides; the discontinuous tumor mass/cells in any site other than the primary site are metastases. Recurrence: For a disease to recur there are several criteria that must be met. First and most important, the patient must have had a disease-free interval (a tumor cannot recur if it has always been present). The other criteria are: the "new tumor" has to occur in the original primary site, it must be the same histology as the original tumor, AND must meet the timing requirements in the MPH rules for that organ/site. |
2012 |
An official website of the United States government
