Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20180094 | Reportability--Prostate: According to the 2018 SEER Program Manual, a prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) III is not reportable, but is an atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP) PIN 4 reportable? |
ASAP is not reportable. Patients with ASAP found on needle biopsy will likely undergo another biopsy. |
2018 | |
|
|
20180093 | 2018 Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: What is the histology and number of primaries for a lung case diagnosed in 2018 with adenocarcinoma with acinar predominant pattern on biopsy, and subsequent lobectomy showing adenocarcinoma with solid growth pattern and separate adenocarcinoma with lepidic predominant pattern? Should this be coded as one primary with an adenocarcinoma, NOS (8140/3) histology since we cannot use pattern or predominant, based on the histologic type listed in the synoptic report, and the fact it states synchronous primary tumors in the same lobe. See Discussion. |
02/18 RUL biopsy: Moderatley differentiated adenocacarcinoma with acinar predominant pattern 04/18 RUL lobectomy: 6.5cm poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma with solid growth pattern and 1.1 cm separate adenocarcinoma with lepidic predominant pattern Synoptic report: Procedure: Lobectomy Specimen Laterality: Right Tumor Tumor Site: Upper lobe Histologic Type: Invasive adenocarcinoma, solid predominant Tumor Size: 6.5 Centimeters (cm) Tumor Focality: Synchronous primary tumors in same lobe Lymph Nodes Number of Lymph Nodes Involved: 0 Number of Lymph Nodes Examined: 12 Nodal Stations Examined: 4R: Lower paratracheal; 8R: Para-esophageal (below carina); 10R: Hilar; 7: Subcarinal Pathologic Stage Classification (pTNM, AJCC 8th Edition) Primary Tumor (pT): pT3 Regional Lymph Nodes (pN): pN0 |
This is a single primary per Lung rule M7. First determine the histology for each tumor. Both tumors are coded 8140/3 because the histologies are a PATTERN. Reference: Coding Multiple Histologies (precedes histology rules) Instruction 2 says do not code pattern . If the word pattern was not in the diagnosis, you would code the specific histology. |
2018 |
|
|
20180061 | Primary Site: How should primary site be coded when there is an invasive tumor in one subsite and an in situ tumor in another subsite of the breast? See Discussion. |
The previous SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual included Appendix C that has Coding Guidelines for some sites. The breast guidelines specifically instructed one to code the subsite with the invasive tumor when the pathology report identifies invasive tumor in one subsite and in situ tumor in a different subsite or subsites. The current Breast Solid Tumor Rules Table 1: Primary Site Codes refers one back to the SEER Manual and COC Manual for a source document priority list but does not make mention of invasive vs. in situ on that final version of the source document. In addition, the Colon Solid Tumor Rules currently contains no Site Coding Section/Table. However, the Lung Solid Tumor Rules do and also refer one to the SEER/COC Manuals for document priority lists. The Urinary Solid Tumor Rules has both the Primary Site Codes Table and an additional section called Priority for Coding Primary Site, which does not reference a document priority list or other manuals. Unfortunately, there is additional information in Appendix C Bladder Coding Guidelines that may have been used in the past regarding site source priority. Could the remaining applicable Appendix C information be consolidated into the Solid Tumor Rules consistently among all the sites to lessen the need for additional manual referencing? Also, is there a reason one site includes the Priority Site Coding instructions and others do not? |
Code the subsite with the invasive tumor as the primary site when the pathology report identifies invasive tumor in one subsite and in situ tumor in a different subsite or subsites as stated in Appendix C, Breast Coding Guidelines, 2018 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual. This statement is unchanged from the previous version; however, the priority list was modified for coding a subsite when there is conflicting information. The focus of the Solid Tumor Rules is to differentiate between single vs. multiple primaries and to assist with identifying the appropriate histology code. The site tables in the solid tumor rules are a reference only. The site-specific Coding Guidelines assist with additional considerations when abstracting cases. |
2018 |
|
|
20180006 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Should encapsulated papillary carcinoma of the breast with a separate focus of ductal carcinoma in situ be coded as 8050/2 (papillary carcinoma) and staged as in situ? See Discussion. |
Pathology--Right breast, lumpectomy with needle localization: Encapsulated papillary carcinoma of the breast. A separate focus of ductal carcinoma in situ is present. Sentinel lymph node, right breast, biopsy: One lymph node, negative for malignancy. No metastatic carcinoma is seen on slides stained with immunostain for cytokeratin (AE1/AE3). Specimen laterality: Right. Tumor size: 1.2 cm. Histologic type: Encapsulated papillary carcinoma. Nuclear grade: Grade 1 (low). Mitotic rate: Score 1. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): DCIS is present. Estimated size (extent) of DCIS: 3 mm. Architectural patterns: Cribriform and papillary. Nuclear grade: grade 1 (low). Necrosis: Not identified. Margins: Margins uninvolved by encapsulated papillary carcinoma. Distance from closest margin: 8 mm, superior Margins uninvolved by DCIS. Distance from closest margin: 11 mm, superior Lymph nodes: Total number of lymph nodes examined (sentinel and nonsentinel): 1. Number of sentinel lymph nodes examined: 1. Number of lymph nodes with tumor cells: 0. Pathologic staging: Primary tumor: See comment. Regional lymph nodes: pN0(i-). Comment: In the WHO Classification of Tumours of the Breast (2012), it is stated that "there is no universal agreement on how to stage encapsulated papillary carcinomas. In the absence of conventional invasive carcinoma, the consensus of the WHO Working Group was that such lesions should be staged and managed as Tis disease." |
For cases diagnosed prior to 2018 Code as encapsulated papillary carcinoma, 8504/3; this is a synonym for intracystic carcinoma (WHO Classification of Tumors of the Breast). Stage this case as invasive. |
2018 |
|
|
20180081 | Reportability--Corpus uteri: Is endometrial atypical complex hyperplasia/borderline endometrial adenocarcinoma (FIGO 1), (mucinous type), (no invasion of myometrium) reportable? |
Do not report this case based on the information provided. The actual diagnosis is somewhere between atypical hyerpplasia and carcinoma in situ. Do not report until/unless a more definitively reportable diagnosis is made. |
2018 | |
|
|
20180108 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: What is the correct histology of a lung mass with a CT-directed fine needle aspirate "positive for malignancy, favor squamous cell carcinoma. See Discussion. |
Immunostain results of the malignant cells show strong staining with p63 and negative staining with TTF-1 and Napsin. Rare cells stain with CK7. Findings are most compatible with squamous cell carcinoma. The patient is treated as if he has squamous cell carcinoma. The new histology coding rules say you cannot use ambiguous terms which modify the histology to code the histology. So is this 8010/3? |
Code histology to SCC. The lung rules were updated 10/12/2018 to include clarification on using ambiguous terminology to code histology. See page 32. Note 2: Histology described by ambiguous terminology is coded when a case is * Clinically confirmed by a physician (attending, pathologist, oncologist, pulmonologist, etc.) * Patient is treated for the histology described by an ambiguous term Your case meets both of these criteria so code histology to SCC. |
2018 |
|
|
20180092 | Reportability/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma is reportable? If yes, what is the correct histology code? |
Diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma is reportable. For cases diagnosed in 2018, assign 9385/3. |
2018 | |
|
|
20180105 | 2018 Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the appropriate histology code for the case below in the Discussion section? Is there a difference between adenocarcinoma in situ (bronchioloalveolar carcinoma), non-mucinous type (8252/2) and adenocarcinoma in-situ, mucinous? See Discussion. |
Procedure: Wedge, resection specimen, Laterality: Right, Tumor site: Right upper lobe, Tumor size: 1.0 cm in greatest dimension, Histologic type: Adenocarcinoma in-situ, mucinous, Histologic grade: N/A, Visceral pleura invasion: Not identified, Tumor extension: N/A, Margins: Uninvolved, Lymphocytosis. |
Assign 8253/2 for adenocarcinoma in situ, mucinous. New codes were added in 2018 for mucinous adenocarcinoma in situ for lung cancer only as all cases were not invasive. Pathologist are discouraged from using the term BAC. In-situ lung tumors can now be identified as either mucinous or non-mucinous and the appropriate ICD-O code should be assigned based on diagnosis. |
2018 |
|
|
20180045 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Breast: The Histology Coding Instructions for breast cancer indicate the term type is not used to code histology unless documented to be greater than or equal to 90% of the tumor. Does this also apply if the format of pathology reports submitted in the College of American Pathologists (CAP) protocol from a specific facility always describes the histology under the heading, Histologic type: ___? See Discussion. |
For certain facilities in our area, the breast pathology reports using a CAP protocol format are formatted as follows; the Final Diagnosis will state Infiltrating carcinoma with the following features. The features list the specific tumor characteristics required in the CAP protocol formatting. The histology is always displayed in the list form and specified as Histologic type: (for example, Histologic type: Ductal carcinoma). Is this specific histology really to be ignored because it is preceded by the word type even if this is just a consequence of the pathology report formatting? |
In the CAP protocol, the term Histologic Type is a label where the histology that corresponds to the largest carcinoma is collected. According to the CAP protocol for invasive breast cancer, the histologic type corresponds to the largest carcinoma. If there are smaller carcinomas of a different type, this information should be included under "Additional Pathologic Findings." The findings noted in the Final Diagnosis, Histologic Type, and Additional Path Findings of the protocol should be used to determine the histology. When there are multiple histologies and 1) the subtype or variant is listed as 90% when there is a Not Otherwise Specified/No Specific Type (NOS/NST) and a subtype, or 2) the subtype/variant histology reflects the majority of the tumor when there are two or more different histologies (two or more distinct subtypes) Code the subtype/variant; otherwise, use the Specific and Not Otherwise Specified/No Specific Type (NOS/NST) Terms and Code listed in Table 2 (columns 1 and 2) of the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules for Breast Cancer. |
2018 |
|
|
20180102 | Solid Tumor Rules 2018/Histology--Brain and CNS: What code should be used for high grade neuroepithelial tumor with BCOR Alteration? See Discussion |
A recent molecular study of PNET tumors at NCI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5139621) seems to indicate the discovery of four new CNS tumor entities, of which HGNET-BCOR is one. The article suggests that these are not primitive neuroectodermal tumors tumors (PNET), but something different. |
This question was reviewed by an expert neuropathologist. He recommends coding these tumors to malignant tumor, clear cell type 8005/3. He states: these tumors are extremely rare. In summary, CNS HGNET-BCOR represents a rare tumor occurring in young patients with dismal prognosis. Whether CNS HGNET-BCOR should be classified among the category of "embryonal tumors" or within the category of "mesenchymal, nonmeningothelial tumors" remains to be clarified. Because CNS HGNET-BCOR share pathologic features and characteristic BCOR-ITD with clear cell sarcoma of the kidney, these tumors may represent local variants of the same entity. |
2018 |
An official website of the United States government
