Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20230051 | First Course Treatment/Surgical Margins of the Primary Site--Melanoma: Is margin status positive or negative when the lesion “approximates” margins? This was noted in the pathology report comment on a malignant melanoma in-situ shave biopsy. Follow-up with physicians is not possible in this situation. |
Assign margin status as “positive” when stated as approximates margins as recommended by our expert pathologists. Approximating means coming right up to inked margin without the margin transecting the tumor. |
2023 | |
|
|
20230028 | Histology--Vulva: How is the histology coded for vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia III (VIN III)/Squamous cell carcinoma in situ from a pathology report of the vulva, 8070/2 for squamous cell carcinoma in situ or 8077/2 for VIN III? The rules do not discuss this particular situation. |
Assign 8077/2 for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, VIN 3 in this case. The WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th edition, states that squamous intraepithelial lesions (SILs) of the vulva are also known as vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia, HPV-associated. The term squamous cell carcinoma in situ is not recommended. |
2023 | |
|
|
20230045 | Reportability/Histology--Thyroid: Is a diagnosis of “angioinvasive oncocytic thyroid neoplasm with features worrisome for a poorly differentiated oncocytic carcinoma” reportable if the diagnosis comment states, additional immunostains were performed which demonstrate the carcinoma cells are positive for thyroglobulin and negative for calcitonin? See Discussion. |
Patient had a right thyroid lobectomy on 12/2022, with initial diagnosis of “thyroid carcinoma pending expert consultation for definitive classification.” The slide review documented in the addendum shows a final diagnosis of “Angioinvasive oncocytic thyroid neoplasm, see comment.” The subsequent comment states, “I would classify this lesion as an angioinvasive oncocytic thyroid neoplasm with features worrisome for a poorly differentiated oncocytic carcinoma.” The comment goes on to state, “Additional immunostains were performed which demonstrate the carcinoma cells are positive for thyroglobulin and negative for calcitonin. The diagnosis remains unchanged.” |
Do not report angioinvasive oncocytic thyroid neoplasm with features worrisome for a poorly differentiated oncocytic carcinoma based on the final, unchanged diagnosis. Worrisome is not a reportable ambiguous terminology. |
2023 |
|
|
20230077 | EOD 2018/ Primary Site/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--CLL/SLL: How are Primary Site and Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor coded when a lymph node biopsy proved chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and the peripheral blood is involved with an “abnormal CD5-positive B-cell population”? See Discussion. |
The patient has adenopathy in multiple lymph node regions above and below the diaphragm and a lymph node biopsy pathology proved CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL). Further work-up with peripheral blood proved an abnormal CD5-positive B-cell population comprising only a small percentage of the white blood cells (WBCs). The pathologist noted this neoplastic B-cell population comprises “3.5% of white blood cells and has an immunophenotype characteristic of CLL/SLL and is similar to the recent lymph node biopsy in this patient.” The managing physician indicated this was a Lugano Stage III SLL. The registrar coded the peripheral blood involvement in EOD Primary Tumor. If this small percentage of WBCs with an abnormal B-cell population is included in EOD Primary Tumor as peripheral blood involvement, then this would indicate peripheral blood/bone marrow involvement and primary site would need to be coded to C421 per Rule PH5. Rules PH5 and PH6 confirm primary site must be coded C421 if peripheral blood or bone marrow are involved. Is there a cutoff value for these abnormal B-cell populations in the peripheral blood? Or should these abnormal B-cell populations be ignored unless the pathologist states the abnormal B-cell population is consistent with CLL/SLL (not just immunophenotypically characteristic of CLL/SLL)? |
Primary site would be C421 based on Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Manual, Module 3, Rule PH 5. Assign EOD Primary Tumor to code 800 (peripheral blood involvement WITH other involvement). Per consultation with an expert hematologist oncologist, this is a Stage IV CLL/SLL since the peripheral blood is involved. There is no cutoff value for the abnormal B-cell populations in the peripheral blood when the cells are consistent with CLL/SLL. If the peripheral blood is involved, even only slightly, it is a Stage IV CLL/SLL. Our expert stated that the physician's staging was wrong (this is not a Lugano, Stage III). |
2023 |
|
|
20230056 | Reportability/Histology--Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the histology code for nodular lymphocyte predominant B cell lymphoma that is never called Hodgkin lymphoma? Is it acceptable to record the histology code for nodular lymphocyte predominant Hodgkin lymphoma, (9659/3)? See Discussion. |
Patient has a history of human immunodeficiency virus and diffuse large B cell lymphoma diagnosed in 2012, and is status/post systemic therapy and in remission since completing first course treatment. In 2022, the patient has imaging suspicious for recurrence. A biopsy of a deep left cervical lymph node showed atypical lymphoid infiltrate with the comment: “This is a challenging case. The constellation of findings is most in keeping with early / focal and subtle involvement by a nodular lymphocyte predominant B-cell lymphoma. We find no evidence of involvement by a diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.” The managing physician later states, “Cervical lymph node biopsy (06/2022) was consistent with nodular lymphocyte predominant B cell lymphoma.” |
According to the 5th edition WHO Blue Book for Hematopoietic Neoplasms, Beta Version, (not released yet), nodular lymphocyte predominant B-cell lymphoma is an alternate name for 9659/3. We will update the Heme database once the 5th edition is released in print. |
2023 |
|
|
20230010 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned when a 2020 diagnosis of invasive ductal carcinoma treated by lumpectomy is followed by a 2023 diagnosis of invasive lobular carcinoma treated by mastectomy? See Discussion. |
Historically, multiple invasive ductal and lobular carcinomas diagnosed within 5 years were abstracted as a single primary. However, it is not clear if Rule M10 or M14 applies to this situation per the 2023 Solid Tumor Rules updates. Rule M10 addresses multiple tumors of carcinoma of no special type (NST)/duct and lobular, but there is no timing criteria mentioned. Does M10 apply to cases diagnosed synchronously, or metachronously, or at least within 5 years? Should Rule M10 include a Note instructing registrars to accession a single primary for the scenario in question? If timing matters for Rule M10, then the next rule that applies is M14. Rule M14 instructs one to abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in Table 3, and carcinoma NST/duct and lobular carcinoma are on separate rows in Table 3. |
Abstract a single primary using the Breast Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M10, assuming the tumors are in the same breast. This rule is specific to multiple tumors of carcinoma NST/duct and lobular. Timing is not a factor in this rule. As stated in ‘New for 2023,’ the rules for determining single versus multiple primaries in tumors with carcinoma NST/duct and lobular carcinoma have been revised and now align with ICD-O-3.2. Tumors occurring more than five years apart are multiple primaries and would have been caught at Rule M5. Thus, rule M10 pertains to tumors occuring less than five years apart. |
2023 |
|
|
20230046 | Reportability/Histology--Tongue: Is high grade squamous dysplasia of the tongue reportable; and is it the same as carcinoma in situ (CIS), code 8077/2? |
High grade squamous dysplasia of the tongue is reportable as of 2021 and later as 8077/2. |
2023 | |
|
|
20230030 | Primary site: Is there a physician priority list for coding primary site? For example, the surgeon states during a pancreatectomy that the primary is in body while the pathologist states in their synopitc report that primary is neck; neither is in agreement, or neither is available for confirmation. |
As a general rule, the surgeon is usually in a better position to determine the site of origin compared to the pathologist. The surgeon sees the tumor in its anatomic location, while the pathologist is often using information given to him/her by the surgeon and looking at a specimen removed from the anatomic landmarks. However, when a pathologist is looking at an entire organ, such as the pancreas, he/she may be able to pinpoint the site of origin within that organ. In the case of pancreas body vs. neck, the neck is a thin section of the pancreas located between the head and the body. It may be a matter of opinion whether a tumor is located in the "body" vs. the "neck." In the situation you describe, we would give preference to the surgeon and assign the code for body of pancreas, C251. |
2023 | |
|
|
20230023 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries—Brain and CNS: How many primaries are accessioned, and which M Rule applies, to a 2018 of pituitary adenoma (8272/0) that was partially resected followed by a 2023 resection of residual disease proving pituitary adenoma/pituitary neuroendocrine tumor (8727/3)? See Discussion. |
The patient had residual tumor following the 2018 transsphenoidal resection and underwent an additional surgery after the residual tumor increased in size. Since pituitary adenoma/pituitary neuroendocrine tumor (PitNET) is a new malignant neoplasm for cases diagnosed 2023 and later, should this be a new primary per M5? Or do we disregard the change in behavior and apply rule M2 (single tumor is a single primary) for this scenario? |
This case does not fall into the standard rules. WHO criteria for diagnosing pituitary adenoma have recently changed (per 5th Ed WHO CNS book) and we will likely see more PitNET’ s than pituitary adenomas in the future. PitNET may be invasive or non-invasive but the likelihood of the pathologists providing this information is low. Since we don’t know if the 2018 adenoma was a PitNET based on current criteria or if it transformed to the malignant neoplasm, err on the side of caution and abstract a second primary per M5. This issue is new, and we’ve received numerous questions concerning pathologist reviewing older cases of pituitary adenoma and reclassifying them as PitNET using the new criteria. |
2023 |
|
|
20230058 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be accessioned for a patient with known history of right breast carcinoma in 2018 followed by 2022 biopsy proven right and left breast invasive ductal carcinoma if the physician states this is a right breast primary with widespread metastasis including the left breast? See Discussion. |
The patient was initially diagnosed with invasive mammary carcinoma of the right breast in 2018, treated with lumpectomy, sentinel node biopsy, radiation, and hormones. Hormones were discontinued early due to dysfunctional uterine bleeding. |
This is a single primary according to the Solid Tumor Rules.
|
2023 |
An official website of the United States government
