Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20180097 | Reportability/Histology--Liver: Are primary hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasm and primary hepatic neuroendocrine tumor (PHNET) reportable? What are the specific histology codes? |
Primary hepatic neuroendocrine tumor (PHNET) is reportable as are other digestive system NETs. There is no specific histology code for PHNET. We suggest you assign 8240/3. Use text fields to document the details. Unless you can obtain clarification, do not report primary hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasm with no further information. If this term is being used as a synonym for PHNET, document this in the registry's policies and procedures, and report these cases. |
2018 | |
|
|
20180107 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: If the pathology states non-small cell carcinoma of the lung (NSCLC), consistent with squamous cell carcinoma, is the code non-small cell carcinoma according to the Solid Tumor Rules? The Medical Oncologist states that the tumor is a squamous cell carcinoma. In these instances would you code the squamous cell carcinoma since you have a definite physician statement? |
Code the histology to SCC 8070/3. Based on registrar feedback on the NSCLC rule, we added a rule that specifically addresses when ambiguous terminology can be used to code histology other than NSCLC. The lung rules were update 10/12/2018 so please make sure you are using the currently posted rules. The new rule is: Rule H3-Code the specific histology when the diagnosis is non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) consistent with (or any other ambiguous term) a specific carcinoma (such as adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, etc.) when: * Clinically confirmed by a physician (attending, pathologist, oncologist, pulmonologist, etc.) * Patient is treated for the histology described by an ambiguous term * The case is accessioned (added to your database) based on ambiguous terminology and no other histology information is available/documented Example 1: The pathology diagnosis is NSCLC consistent with adenocarcinoma. The oncology consult says the patient has adenocarcinoma of the right lung. This is clinical confirmation of the diagnosis, code adenocarcinoma. Your case meets the criteria in bullet 1. |
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20180104 | Reportability--Ambiguous terminology: Are the following terms reportable: almost certainly and until proven otherwise? See Discussion. |
Example 1: Physician states patient has an almost certain melanoma. Due to the patient's age, there is no plan to for any treatment or further workup. Almost certain is not listed as a reportable phrase, so typically we would not accession this case. Example 2: Imaging states a diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma until proven otherwise. No additional workup is available at this facility. This terminology is also not seen on the ambiguous reportable terminology list but we are seeing it more often and wanted confirmation. |
Use the ambiguous terminology list as a last resort. Consult with the physician and search for further information to assist with the decision. If no further information can be obtained, use the ambiguous terms list to decide; in this case, the terms are not on the list and these examples would not be reportable. |
2018 |
|
|
20180032 | Reportability--Appendix: Is low grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) reportable for 2018? It is staged as pTis(LAMN) AJCC 8th ed by pathologist. |
Low grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) is not reportable in 2018. See page 6, https://20tqtx36s1la18rvn82wcmpn-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2018-ICD-O-3-Coding-Table-Alpha-order-.pdf. Use cancer registry reportability instructions to determine reportability. Do not use the AJCC TNM manual to determine reportability. |
2018 | |
|
|
20180064 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Recurrence--Breast: Does any recurrence within the multiple primaries-stated timeframe count, not those just in the primary site? See Discussion. |
A patient has a left breast cancer diagnosed in 2011; then has a "recurrence" in her lymph nodes in 2017. In 2018, she has a new left breast mass that is the same histology and behavior as the 2011 cancer. Based on the 2017 "recurrence" in the lymph nodes, this is not a new breast primary, is that correct? |
This is a single primary using 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rule M11. Rule M8 does not apply because the patient was not clinically disease free for 5 years. We are interpreting the 2017 diagnosis as lymph node metastasis from the 2011 breast cancer diagnosis. |
2018 |
|
|
20180088 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Prostate: How many primaries are abstracted and what M Rule applies when a patient is diagnosed with prostate adenocarcinoma in 2014, followed by liver mass biopsy showing neuroendocrine carcinoma, small cell type of the prostate in 2018? See Discussion. |
The patient has a history of prostate adenocarcinoma with lymph node metastases, status post prostatectomy and treatment by Lupron in 2014. The most recent prostate serum antigen measurement (April 2018) was normal. CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis revealed new hypodense liver lesions, a slightly enlarging lung right lower lobe nodule, and enlarging lobular mass in the prostatectomy bed. The core liver biopsy contains areas of metastatic tumor with a differential diagnosis on pathology of high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the prostate (small cell type), which may have been seen in association with prostate adenocarcinoma, or metastatic small cell carcinoma of a different site. Clinically, the physician impression is that this represents metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The Solid Tumor Rules note that the Multiple Primary Rules are not used for tumor(s) described as metastases. However, SINQ 20130221 indicates that, at least historically, these would have been accessioned as multiple primaries (histology 8140 & 8041 per Rule M10). Does the previous SINQ note still apply to these types of cases, and if so how would one know to move beyond the initial note indicating metastases are not new primaries? |
The guidance provided in SINQ 20130221 still applies. Accession two primaries, adenocarcinoma [8140/3] of the prostate [C619], followed by small cell (neuroendocrine) carcinoma [8041/3] of the prostate [C619] for each of the examples given per Rule M10 of the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules, Prostate. In each case, the second histology (because it is not adenocarcinoma) is a new prostate primary. Small cell carcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma are not adenocarcinomas. As a result, they are not covered by Rule M3. For the case described in this SINQ submission, based on the findings of a lobular mass in the prostate bed, this is a second primary (there is residual prostatic tissue). This is unchanged from the 2007 Multiple Primaries Rules for Other Sites. |
2018 |
|
|
20180034 | Reportability--Vulva: Is a biopsy showing high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (VIN II) in the vulva reportable for cases diagnosed in 2018? See Discussion. |
In comparison to SINQ 20180022, this case does not mention VIN III anywhere in the final diagnosis. Is any mention of HGSIL in the final diagnosis reportable, even if it is qualified with a non-reportable term in parenthesis or CAP protocol? |
Since this HSIL diagnosis is specified as VIN II, do not report it. WHO includes both VIN II and VIN III as synonyms for HSIL of the vulva. HSIL is reportable and VIN III is reportable. VIN II is not reportable. |
2018 |
|
|
20180013 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are tuberous sclerosis cancers found in the brain reportable? See Discussion. |
I have searched ICD-O-3 for a histology listing but could not locate. I also searched the SEER Inquiry database for possible answers, but none were found. The patient underwent a pediatric MRI of the brain of which final impression was: 1) Subependymoma nodules, cortical tubers, and SEGAs are seen bilaterally consistent with tuberous sclerosis. |
SEGA (Subependymal giant cell astrocytoma) is reportable if diagnosed in 2004 or later. Tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) is not a neoplasm and is not reportable. SEGA is a neoplasm that commonly occurs in TSC patients. Refer to the reportability instructions on pages 5-7 in the SEER manual, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2016/SPCSM_2016_maindoc.pdf |
2018 |
An official website of the United States government
