Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20170004 | MP/H Ruels/Histology--Kidney/renal pelvis: How is MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with Xp11 translocation coded? See Discussion. |
Pathology states: Translocation renal cell carcinoma. Comment Tumor morphology and IHC profile consistent with MiT family translocation RCC with Xp11 translocation. |
Assign 8312/3 to MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with Xp11 translocation. The recent WHO 4th Ed Tumors of the Urinary System has proposed a new ICD-O-3 code for MiT family translocation RCC, however the implementation of this new code has not yet been approved by the standard setters (SEER, CoC, CDC, NAACCR). Until it is approved, code histology to renal cell carcinoma (8312/3). |
2017 |
|
|
20170051 | Reportability--Liver: Is intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the liver a reportable diagnosis? See Discussion. |
Pathology shows: Right liver lobe, partial hepatectomy " intraductal papillary neoplasm with high grade dysplasia. |
Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the liver with high grade dysplasia is reportable. While most IPMNs arise from the pancreas, there exists a subset of IPMN of the biliary tract (BT-IPMN). Code as 8453/2. For more details, see the Reportability section of the SEER manual, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2016/SPCSM_2016_maindoc.pdf |
2017 |
|
|
20170068 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the histology of a lung tumor described as solid predominant with mucin production, 8230/3 (Multiple Primaries/Histology (MP/H) Rule 5) or 8255/3 (MP/H Rule 6)? See Discussion. |
Pathology report: Left lower lobe lung, Tumor Size: Greatest dimension: 3.0 cm Additional dimensions: 2.5 x 2.0 cm; Tumor Focality: Unifocal; Histologic Type: Invasive adenocarcinoma Solid predominant with mucin production; Histologic Grade: G3: Poorly differentiated. Is the correct histology for this case 8230/3 (rule H5) or 8255/3 (rule H6)? |
Code histology as 8230/3, solid adenocarcinoma with mucin formation, using MP/H Rule H3 as one histologic type is identified. All of the histologic terms (solid, mucin production) are covered by 8230/3. Therefore, rule H3 applies. Use the first rule that applies, and stop. |
2017 |
|
|
20170045 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is meningioangiomatosis reportable as meningiomatosis (9530/1) or angiomatous meningioma (9534/0)? See Discussion. |
Pathology report: Brain tumor, left side: Gliotic cortex and subcortical white matter with meningioangiomatosis (see Comment). Comment This specimen represents a meningioangiomatous lesion located in the leptomeninges that projects along the Virchow-Robin spaces into the underlying cortex. The surrounding brain parenchyma demonstrates reactive changes with astrogliosis and microgliosis. An intraparenchymal neoplasm is not seen. Meningioangiomatosis is a rare benign meningovascular hamartomatous condition and usually appears in young patients. |
Meningioangiomatosis is not reportable. It is a cortical lesion which may occur sporadically or in NF2 (neurofibromatosis type 2). It is not listed in ICD-O-3. |
2017 |
|
|
20000513 | Multiple Primaries/Histology (Pre-2007)--Bladder: What code is used to represent the histology and how many primaries should be coded for a TURB specimen that demonstrates carcinoma in situ, Grade I to II papillary transitional cell carcinoma, and high grade transitional cell carcinoma? See discussion. | Pathology report: A. Biopsy, bladder neck, @ 6:00: Carcinoma in situ B. Biopsy, Bladder wall, lateral, left: 1. Papillary carcinoma (Grade I-II) 2. Loose fragments of high-grade transitional carcinoma C. Biopsy, Bladder neck @ 5:00: Carcinoma in situ D. Biopsy, Bladder neck @ 7:00: Cystitis Glandularis E. Biospsy, Bladder wall, posterior: Papillary carcinoma (Grade I) |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code this case as one primary and code the Histology and Grade, Differentiation fields to 8130/34 [papillary transitional cell carcinoma, high grade].
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. |
2000 |
|
|
20150048 | Reportability--Skin: Is low grade trichoblastic carcinoma, with a small focus of high grade carcinoma of the scalp reportable? See discussion. |
Pathology report states: the individual nodules of trichoblastic cells resemble those seen in trichoblastoma, but the lesion is very poorly circumscribed with an infiltrative border that extends into the subcutis. the lesion may behave in a locally aggressive fashion, and should be completely removed. High grade trichoblastic carcinomas can metastasize. |
Trichoblastic carcinoma of the skin is not reportable. The WHO classification lists trichoblastic carcinoma as a synonym for basal cell carcinoma, 8090/3. Basal cell carcinoma of the skin is not reportable. See page 11 in the SEER manual, http://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2015/SPCSM_2015_maindoc.pdf. |
2015 |
|
|
20130215 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis synonymous with an EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disorder in children reportable? See Discussion. |
Pathology report states: Prominent T-cell infiltrate with frequent immunoblast-like cells. COMMENT: Findings consistent with an acute EBV-associated hemophagocytic process. In addition, there is a prominent CD8 + T-cell infiltrate with many large, activated forms. This T-cell process may represent an EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disorder in children. EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disorder in children is listed in the Heme database. However, throughout multiple admissions, the oncologist states the diagnosis as "hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis". Are the two the same condition? The patient is being treated with Etoposide. |
Per Appendix F, do not report this case based on the information provided. The oncologist likely used the pathology report and clinical factors to determine the diagnosis of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, which is not reportable. Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis is caused by an over stimulated immune system (infection, etc.). This clinical syndrome is associated with a variety of underlying conditions. To be reportable, it must state "fulminant hemophagocytic syndrome" (in a child) to be reportable (9724/3). The pathology report for this case is not definitive. It states that the process "may" represent the EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disorder in children. Follow back on this case to confirm reportability if possible. |
2013 |
|
|
20031125 | Histology/Reportability/Behavior Code--Testis: Is a mature teratoma that is metastatic to lymph nodes reportable? See Description. |
Pathology report states, "Histologic sections reveal lymph node metastases, consisting predominantly of mature teratoma. In addition, there are cells scattered through the fibrous stroma which exhibit mild cytologic atypia but have low N:C ratios. The largest metastasis grossly measures 10cm. In addition extracapsular extension is identified. Diagnosis: Lymph Nodes--Metastatic Testicular Carcinoma Involving Multiple Lymph Nodes." The morphology code for mature teratoma is 9080/0. The pathologist does not classify this as an immature teratoma (9080/3). Is this reportable? |
Yes, this metastatic teratoma is reportable. This is a malignant teratoma by virtue of the lymph node metastases. Code the histology as 9080/3 [Teratoma, malignant, NOS]. Primary site is testis [C62_]. |
2003 |
|
|
20041029 | Ambiguous Terminology/Reportability: Are the terms "bordering on" and "may represent" diagnostic of cancer? See Discussion. |
Pathology report states "...florid micropapillary hyperplasia, focally atypical with features bordering on low grade micropapillary ductal carcinoma in situ." |
The terms "bordering on" and "may represent" are not diagnostic of cancer. These terms are not on the list of ambiguous terms that constitute a diagnosis of cancer. The diagnosis in the example above is not reportable to SEER. |
2004 |
|
|
20150044 | Reportability--Ovary: Is micropapillary serous carcinoma (MPSC) of the ovary reportable? What are the differences between “noninvasive" and “low malignant potential?" See discussion. |
Pathology report reads left ovary: noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC), fragmented; right ovarian excrescence and posterior cul-de-sac: noninvasive implants identified; right ovary: noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC), scattered autoimplants (noninvasive); tumor is present on ovarian surface, noninvasive autoimplants |
Noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC) of the ovary is reportable. Assign code 8460/2, applying the ICD-O-3 matrix concept to this noninvasive carcinoma. Noninvasive can be used as a synonym for in situ, ICD-O-3 behavior code /2. See page 66 in the softcover ICD-O-3. Low malignant potential (LMP) means that the neoplasm is not malignant, but has some chance of behaving in a malignant fashion. LMP can be used as a synonym for ICD-O-3 behavior code /1, see page 66. |
2015 |
An official website of the United States government
