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: 05/27/2026 13:49 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20100108 MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: How is histology coded for a left occipital parietal area tumor stated to be a "low grade neuroectodermal neoplasm most consistent with neuronal tumor but lacking classic features of ganglioma" if the pathologist states the tumor is not malignant? Code 9505/0 [Ganglioglioma, benign] is the best option according to our pathology expert. He states, "There recently has been a spate of tumors called low grade glio-neuronal tumors that are not PNETs and have no propensity to become malignant." 2010
20100063 Primary Site-Lung: Can you use a lung subsite code for a histologically confirmed lung primary when a CT scan indicates a sized mass located in one lobe of the lung as well as "too numerous to count nodules" through one or both lungs? See Discussion. For example, chest CT shows "1.6 cm RUL suspicious mass and too numerous to count nodules throughout both lungs." Core biopsy of mass in the RUL compatible with adenocarcinoma. For lung primaries with one large mass and numerous nodules, code the primary site to the subsite where the large mass is located. For your example, code the primary site to C341 [upper lobe of lung]. Note: This answer does NOT mean that the other nodules are primary or metastatic cancer. 2010
20100027 Reportability: Is AIN III reportable if it arises in the perianal skin? See Discussion. Physical exam states patient has a suspicious area of anal skin. Operative findings show a raised, suspicious lesion in the right perianal region. Our interpretation of the primary site would be skin and therefore not reportable. However, the final diagnosis on the pathology report indicates "AIN III/squamous cell carcinoma with focal areas suspicious for microinvasion. "SINQ #20041056 states that AIN III is reportable. AIN III of the anus or anal canal (C210-C211) is reportable. AIN III (8077) arising in perianal skin (C445) is not reportable. 2010
20100040 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is this field coded for a patient with a negative bone marrow and multiple plasmacytomas in different bone sites (e.g., thoracic vertebrae and left femur)?

Updated May 2026

The original answer for this question was to code the primary site to C419 [Bone, NOS] and histology to 9731/3 [solitary plasmacytoma]

In 2021, we received clinical guidance from the WHO 4th edition which stated the presence of two plasmacytomas is multiple myeloma (9732/3), even if the bone marrow is negative or not evaluated. Registrars were not required to go back and review older cases.

This case would be coded as a single primary, 9732/3 and primary site C421.

2010
20100096 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a 9/30/10 biopsy diagnoses follicular lymphoma, grade 1 and the patient is subsequently diagnosed on a 10/11/10 biopsy with large B-cell lymphoma which is stated to be a transformation of the prior lymphoma?

Updated May 2026

Per Rule M11, this case is to be accessioned as two primaries: follicular lymphoma, grade 1 [9695/3] and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) [9680/3]. The case represents a chronic neoplasm (follicular lymphoma, grade) and an acute neoplasm (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma) which was diagnosed after the initial clinical workup of the chronic disease was completed and there is documentation of two biopsies, one confirming the chronic disease and the other confirming the acute disease.

 2010
20100110

Reportability--Esophagus/Stomach: Are the terms "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" synonymous with in situ for tumors in the gastrointestinal tract? See Discussion.

SINQ 20000245 states that high grade or severe dysplasia in not synonymous with in situ disease. However, per page 109 in the 7th edition of AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, high grade dysplasia is the only term listed under Tis. A note on that page explains that "high-grade dysplasia includes all noninvasive neoplastic epithelia that was formerly called carcinoma in situ, a diagnosis that is no longer used for columnar mucosae anywhere in the gastrointestinal tract."

There has been considerable pressure from registrars at larger reporting facilities to re-address this issue. The pathologists at these facilities state that they are correctly documenting the presence of in situ disease when they use the term high grade dysplasia for gastrointestinal tract tumors. In their opinion, it is not necessary to add the term in situ in parentheses following the use of the term high grade dysplasia to clarify the behavior of these lesions in their pathology reports. If the term "carcinoma in situ" is no longer being used by many pathologists for sites in the gastrointestinal tract, won't this lead to underreporting of in situ disease for these sites unless the reportability guidelines are changed?

For cancer reporting purposes, the terms "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" are not synonymous with in situ for tumors in the gastrointestinal tract. These cases are only reportable when the pathologist documents carcinoma in situ or intraepithelial neoplasia grade III, or when the registry includes in their policies and procedures the pathologist's statement that he/she uses HGD to mean the same as CIS.

Reportability laws are customarily based on ICD-O. Because "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" are not designated as in situ in the ICD-O, there is no legal authority to report these cases in most states.

NAACCR is reviewing this issue. See #5 on page 11 of the December 1, 2013 NAACCR Implementation document, http://www.naaccr.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=u7d3sB71t5w%3d&tabid=126&mid=466

2010
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.

 2010
20100029 MP/H Rules/Histology--Corpus uteri: How should histology be coded and how many primaries should be accessioned for an endometrial primary in which curettings showed malignant mixed mullerian tumor (carcinosarcoma) but hysterectomy specimen showed endometrioid adencarcinoma? See Discussion. The pathology report COMMENT for the hysterectomy specimen stated that the previous curettage was reviewed. The findings are compatible with malignant mixed mullerian tumor. No residual features of malignant mixed mullerian tumor are found in the current resection, which shows FIGO grade I adenocarcinoma in the wall of the uterus. The malignant mixed Mullerian tumor appears to have been removed with the curettage. There is no information available regarding the number of tumors in these specimens.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract a single primary. Rule M1 applies because there is no information on the number of tumors and there is no way to know whether the curettage sample was from a separate tumor or from the tumor in the hysterectomy specimen.

Apply rule H17 and code histology to 8980/3 for malignant mixed Mullerian tumor [Carcinosarcoma, NOS].

2010
20100035 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Colon: How many primaries are accessioned for a patient with two colon carcinomas in different segments of colon when there is no documentation that either tumor arose in a polyp, there is no statement indicating the presence of adenomatous polyposis coli and the resected pathology specimen indicates the presence of over 200 polyps? See Discussion.

The first MP/H rule that applies for this case is M4 [tumors in different segments of the colon]. Following rule M4, the case would be counted as two primaries and the histology would be coded per Rule H11. As these are multiple primaries, Rule H17 [Code 8220 (adenocarcinoma in adenomatous polyposis coli) when there are > 100 polyps identified in the specimen] would never apply, because H17 applies to multiple tumors abstracted as a single primary. However, Rule H17 seems to fit this case. Should Rule M3 be expanded to include a statement about > 100 polyps so these cases are not accessioned as multiple primaries?

Example: Total colectomy: 1) Distal tumor: - ulcerating moderately differentiated colonic adenocarcinoma, 3.2 cm in greatest dimension. Tumor invades through the muscularis propria into the subserosa (pt3). 2) Proximal tumor: exophytic moderately differentiated colonic adenocarcinoma, 2.9 cm in greatest dimension. Tumor invades submucosa (pt1). Multiple tubular adenomas present throughout the colon, approximate count greater than 200.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule M3 for this case and abstract as a single primary. The case information makes it clear that this is adenomatous polyposis coli. Clarification will be added to rule M3 in the next revision of the rules. 2010
20100013

Reportability--Lymphoma: Should a December 2008 diagnosis of in situ follicular lymphoma be accessioned? See Discussion.

Patient with mesenteric lymphadenopathy had a biopsy. Consult supports original pathology findings: The histologic and immunophenotypic findings represent what has been referred to in the literature as "in situ follicular lymphoma." The oncology assessment states, "At this point the patient has no other obvious evidence of other disease. ...no hepatosplenomegaly...no peripheral adenopathy...no significant abnormalities on PET scan to suggest active lymphoma." No treatment is planned at this time. The patient will only be monitored.

Do not report in situ lymphoma at this time. Currently, lymphoma cannot be reported with a behavior code of in situ (/2) and it would be incorrect to abstract in situ lymphoma as a /3.

It is true that this is a recently identified pathologic entity. Our experts say that there is still some controversy to be ironed out regarding the criteria for identifying an in situ lymphoma. Their recommendation was to wait until clear guidelines had been established for the pathologists before we start collection of in situ lymphomas. We anticipate collecting these entities in the future.

2010