Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
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 |
|
|
20230063 | EOD 2018/EOD Regional Nodes--Melanoma: Can central cancer registries code Extent of Disease (EOD) Regional Nodes as 000 based on Breslow’s depth and/or Clark’s Level (per EOD and/or Summary Stage) from a melanoma pathology only report with a localized tumor and no information on regional lymph nodes or mets. See Discussion. |
Based on the EOD General instructions for accessible sites, the following three requirements must be met a. There is no mention of regional lymph node involvement in the physical examination, pre-treatment diagnostic testing, or surgical exploration; b. The patient has localized disease; c. The patient receives what would be the standard treatment to the primary site (treatment appropriate to the stage of disease as determined by the physician), or patient is offered usual treatment but refuses it. As a central registry, we receive a lot of melanoma path reports but never receive an abstract since the patients are seen at a dermatology office that does not report to the central registry. In these scenarios, we have both the diagnosis and wide excision or Mohs surgery from which we create a consolidated record. It is not often that lymph nodes are removed which indicates there were no palpable nodes. Since the Breslow’s and Clark’s level allow for summary staging, is it possible to have central registry guidelines that allow for coding lymph nodes other than 999? The path reports meet two of the three criteria. Is there any new literature that supports coding lymph nodes 000 based on a Clark’s level or Breslow measure providing the patient has a wide excision? |
Assign 000 for EOD Regional Nodes when you have a pathology only report with a localized tumor based on Breslow’s depth and/or Clark’s Level (per EOD and/or Summary Stage) and no information on regional lymph nodes or mets. When the tumor is noted to be regional or distant based on Breslow’s Depth and/or Clark’s based on the definitions in EOD and/or Summary Stage, do not assume that the nodes are negative and assign 999. Clarification will be added to the EOD manual. |
2023 |
|
|
20230009 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Vulva: How many primaries are accessioned when a 2023 diagnosis of keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) (8071/3) of the vulva follows a previous diagnosis of nonkeratinizing SCC (8072/3) of the vulva and the timing rule (M12) does not apply? See Discussion. |
Table 19: Vulva Histologies of the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules does not include entries for either keratinizing or nonkeratinizing squamous cell carcinoma in the “Squamous cell carcinoma, NOS” row. However, these are two distinctly different histologies per the ICD-O-3.2. All other Solid Tumor Rules schemas include an M Rule instructing one to abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are two or more different subtypes/variants in Column 3 of the Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtype/Variants Table for the schema (e.g., Rule M6 for Lung). The timing of these tumors is stated to be irrelevant. The Notes confirm the tumors may be subtypes/variants of the same or different NOS histologies and tumors in column 3 are all distinctly different histologies (even if they are in the same row). However, the 2023 Other Sites schema appears to be missing this rule. Should these distinctly different histologies be accessioned as separate primaries? Is an M Rule missing from the Other Sites schema to address distinctly different histologies? |
Table 19 is based on WHO 5th Ed Tumors of vulva and squamous cell variants, keratinizing and non-keratinizing, are no longer recommended and are excluded from the 5th Ed. HPV related terminology is now preferred for these neoplasms. Per consultation with our GYN expert pathologist, based on the information provided, this is likely a single tumor that was not completely excised in the original biopsy. A new tumor in the same site would not appear within 8 months. If you cannot confirm two separate/non-contiguous tumors were present, abstract a single primary per M1. As for histology, the tumor showed both keratinizing and non-keratinizing features and HPV status is unclear. Per our expert, code to SCC 8070/3—keratinization or lack of does not change treatment or prognosis. Even If there is proof of separate/non-contiguous tumors, our expert still feels this is a single primary coded to SCC 8070/3. Treatment does not differ by keratinization or HPV status. Coding two primaries would be incorrect and inflate incidence rates. Per our expert, this is an unusual occurrence. The rules cover 85% of cases but there will always be situations that do not fit a rule. This case is an example of that. A new GYN specific Solid Tumor Rules module is under development and a rule to address this situation could be included. |
2023 |
|
|
20230042 | First Course Treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Rectum: What surgery code should be used for laparoscopic C/T open low anterior resection with colorectal anastomosis, loop ileostomy in diagnosis year 2020, code 30 or 40? See Discussion. |
Can you provide clarification on Rectum primary surgical code 40 Pull through WITH sphincter preservation (colo-anal anastomosis)? Would this be code 30 or 40 due to the colorectal anastomosis? |
Assign code 40, Pull through WITH sphincter preservation (colo-anal anastomosis). The National Cancer Institute Dictionary of Cancer Terms defines coloanal anastomosis as a surgical procedure in which the colon is attached to the anus after the rectum has been removed. It is also called coloanal pull-through. |
2023 |
|
|
20230035 | Update to Current Manual/2018 EOD Manual/EOD Primary Tumor--Bladder: According to the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC), a transurethral resection of the bladder (TURB) cannot make a distinction between involvement of the superficial muscle-inner half (Stage T2a) and the deep muscle-outer half (Stage T2b). Is this same criteria applied to Extent of Disease (EOD)? |
EOD follows AJCC criteria in this situation and we have confirmed with AJCC that Stage T2a (superficial muscle) and Stage T2b (deep muscle) cannot be assigned when only a TURB is done. For EOD Primary Tumor, Bladder, codes 200, 250, 300, 350, can only be used when
If a TURB is done and there is mention of the muscularis propria invasion (superficial muscle or deep muscle), use EOD codes 370 or 400. If a TURB is done and the pathology report states superficial or deep muscle, ignore and coded as “invasion of muscularis propria, NOS” (EOD codes 370 or 400). Instructions and code descriptions for EOD Primary Tumor have been updated to indicate this. These updated instructions and code descriptions will be available when SEER*RSA is updated for 2024, Version 3.1 (Sept/Oct 2023). These updates are included here for reference and can be applied for cases diagnosed 2018+. |
2023 | |
|
|
20230037 | Reportability/Histology--Gallbladder: Is intracholecystic papillary-tubular neoplasm (ICPN) with extensive high grade dysplasia of the gallbladder reportable? |
Report intracholecystic papillary neoplasm (ICPN) with high-grade dysplasia (8503/2) of the gallbladder. |
2023 | |
|
|
20230071 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Cervix: How is histology coded for a 2023 endocervical adenocarcinoma negative for high-risk human papilloma virus (HR-HPV) on Pap smear and strongly positive for p16 on biopsy? See Discussion. |
The Solid Tumor Rules indicate p16 is a valid test to determine HPV status and can be used to code HPV-associated/-independent. In this case, we do not know whether the HR-HPV test was done on cytologically malignant cells, or on benign cervical cells. It may be impossible to tell unless 100% of the cytology specimen is malignant, but we will not have access to that information. Also, HR-HPV testing is routine on Pap smears, so this testing does not mean the tumor cells specifically harbor HPV. |
Assign histology as adenocarcinoma, HPV-associated (8483/3) as designated in Table 17, Uterine Cervix Histologies, of the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules. The WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th edition, states that p16 immunohistochemistry is an effective (yet flawed) indirect test for HR-HPV infection, in line with the STRs that state p16 is a valid test to determine HPV status and can be used to code HPV-associated and HPV-independent histologies. In this scenario, "negative for high-risk human papilloma virus (HR-HPV) on Pap smear" would be cytology-based, and may have missed cytologically malignant cells. A subsequent, more definitive biopsy was performed and was found to be strongly positive for p16, therefore, the tumor should be coded as 8483/3. |
2023 |
|
|
20230043 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code for a lung tumor diagnosed as “Minimally invasive adenocarcinoma, mixed mucinous and non-mucinous, grade 1, lepidic-predominant”? See Discussion. |
The resection pathology report final diagnosis indicates this is both mixed mucinous and non-mucinous with a lepidic predominant component. The pathologist notes this is “Lepidic: 75%. Acinar: 25%.” The percentage of the mucinous component is not documented. Rule H1, Note 1, states “When mucinous carcinoma is mixed with another histology, such as adenocarcinoma and mucinous carcinoma, code mucinous ONLY when mucinous is documented to be greater than 50% of the tumor.” While mixed invasive mucinous and non-mucinous carcinoma is included in Table 2 (Combination/Mixed Histology Codes) without a required percentage, it is unclear whether one should move past Rule H7 and use Rule H8 to code this combination histology code. Rule H7 would instruct one to code the histology to lepidic adenocarcinoma (adenocarcinoma, lepidic predominant) based on the percentage of the lepidic component in the tumor. However, this does not address the mixed mucinous and non-mucinous diagnosis. Which H Rule and histology apply to this case? |
Assign histology code 8254/3 (mixed invasive mucinous and non-mucinous adenocarcinoma) to this lung tumor using Lung Solid Tumor Rules, Rule H4. This is a new code/term approved by IARC/WHO for ICD-O. Rule H4 instructs one to code the histology when only one histology is present. In this case, the pathologist indicates the tumor is mixed mucinous and non-mucinous histologies. The non-mucinous carcinoma that is seen in this mixed histology may be identified as: Adenocarcinoma in situ, minimally invasive adenocarcinoma, or lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma. In this case it is lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma. Lepidic is a recognized histology in lung. It is not unusual for the pathologist to indicate mixed non-muncinous and mucinous adenocarcinoma AND also list the non-mucinous subytpe. It is important to capture both mucinous and non-mucinous histologies which drives treatment, etc. |
2023 |
|
|
20230066 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Lung: Table 3 in Lung Solid Tumor Rules, 2023 Update, lists neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS 8246 as a specific subtype/variant for small cell carcinoma 8041/3. Should the table be updated? See Discussion. |
Small cell carcinoma is a specific type of neuroendocrine carcinoma for the lung. However, Table 3 lists neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS as the more specific subtype/variant in Column 3. Using Lung Solid Tumor Rules, Rule H6, a diagnosis of poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (small cell carcinoma)” would be coded as 8246, instead of 8041, because there are two histologies under consideration (an NOS and a subtype/variant in Table 3), and the rule tells us to code the subtype/variant. However, small cell carcinoma is more specific than the NOS diagnosis (neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS). Should Table 3 be updated to reflect which histology is the NOS and which is the more specific? |
The Solid Tumor Rules for Lung have been updated for 2024. The row for Small cell carcinoma 8041/3 has been deleted and new separate rows have been added for Neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) 8246 and Neuroendocrine tumor, NOS (NET) 8240. This change is based on the WHO Classification of Thoracic Tumors, 5th edition, and current concepts. In addition, Table 3 now reflects that Small cell carcinoma/small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma 8041 (located in Column 3) is a subtype/variant of neuroendocrine carcinoma, NEC 8246 (Column 1). As a result, application of Rule H6 to a diagnosis of poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (small cell carcinoma)” would be coded as 8041, instead of 8246. Please note: the 2024 updates may be used for cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2024 unless otherwise noted in the rules. |
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 |
An official website of the United States government
