Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20210018 | Reportability/Histology--Head & Neck: Is carcinoma cuniculatum of the hard palate diagnosed in 2017 reportable? Was this rare variant of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) missed in Casefinding? If reportable, what is the histology code? |
Carcinoma cuniculatum of the hard palate is reportable. Code to SCC, NOS (8070/3). Use text fields to record the details. While WHO recognizes carcinoma cuniculatum to be a new variant of oral cancer, it has not proposed a new ICD-O code for this neoplasm. |
2021 | |
|
|
20210002 | Multiple Primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned for a patient diagnosed with therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome (t-MDS) (9920/3) in 2015 followed by a 2020 diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome, NOS (MDS, NOS) (9989/3)? See Discussion. |
Patient has a history of B-cell lymphoma with multimodality treatment in 2002. Lab work in 2015 showed multilineage dysplasia leading to a diagnosis of therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome. Patient presents in 2020 for a bone marrow biopsy now showing low-grade MDS. The MDS appears to have the same multilineage dysplasia previously identified. MDS, NOS is not listed in the Heme DB as a possible transformation of t-MDS, nor is it listed as a Same Primary for t-MDS. Likewise, t-MDS is not listed as a more specific myelodysplastic syndrome, a transformation of MDS NOS, or a Same Primary as MDS, NOS. The first M rule that applies to this case is M15, and the Multiple Primaries Calculator indicates that the MDS, NOS should be a new primary. |
Abstract separate primaries using Rule M15 of the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms (Heme) Manual. The Heme Database states: Excluded from this category are progression of myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) and evolution of primary MDS or primary MDS/MPN to acute myeloid leukemia (AML); in each of these latter cases evolution to AML is part of the natural history of the primary disease and it may be impossible to distinguish natural progression from therapy-related changes. There is no indication of transformation. |
2021 |
|
|
20210060 | Reportability/Histology--Thymus: Is a 2021 diagnosis of a type A microscopic thymoma reportable? See Discussion. |
ICD-O-3.2 lists microscopic thymoma as benign (8580/0) and thymoma, type A as malignant (8581/3). January 2021: Left central neck node dissection for thyroid carcinoma with thymic tissue showing an incidental type A microscopic thymoma, described as a small (<0.2 cm) focus. Diagnosis comments further indicate this is morphologically consistent with a microscopic thymoma (type A). |
Report this case as type A thymoma. We consulted an expert physician and his advice on this specific case is to interpret it as a malignancy and report. Use text fields to record the details of this case. |
2021 |
|
|
20210075 | Reportability: What American College of Radiology Reporting and Data Systems (RADS) can be used to determine reportability? See Discussion. |
LI-RADS (liver), PI-RADS (prostate), and TI-RADS (thyroid) can be used to determine reportability. BI-RADS (breast) and Lung-RADS cannot be used to determine reportability. Can these systems below to determine reportability? C-RADS (from CT colonography) NI-RADS (head & neck) O-RADS (ovarian-adnexal) |
The following cancer cases are reportable unless there is information to the contrary. –Liver cases with an LI-RADS category LR-4 (reportable since 2021) or LR-5 (reportable since 2016) –Prostate cases with a PI-RADS category 4 or 5 (reportable since 2017) The following are not reportable without additional information. –Breast cases designated BI-RADS 4, 4A, 4B, 4C or BI-RADS 5 –Lung cases designated Lung-RADS 4A," 4B, or 4X –Liver cases based only on an LI-RADS category of LR-3 –Colon cases with only C-RADS information (C-RADS category C4 is not reportable by itself) –Head and Neck cases with only NI-RADS information (NI-RADS category 3 is not reportable by itself) –Ovarian or fallopian tube cases with only O-RADS information (none of the O-RADS categories are reportable without additional information) –Thyroid cases with only TI-RADS information (none of the TI-RADS categories are reportable without additional information) |
2021 |
|
|
20210064 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018/2021)/Multiple primaries--Ovary: How many primaries should be reported when patient has right fallopian tube high-grade serous carcinoma and bilateral serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC)? See Discussion. |
Patient is diagnosed March 2021, with malignant pleural effusion, clinical impression supports either endometrial or tubo-ovarian primary and neoadjuvant chemotherapy is given. Subsequent total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAH/BSO) in July, shows high-grade serous carcinoma involving the right fallopian tube and bilateral ovaries, as well as bilateral STIC. Summary Stage lists tumor site as right fallopian tube, with the serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC) noted under “additional findings.” Should the contralateral (left-sided) STIC be accessioned as an additional primary, per MP/H Rule M8, the since fallopian tubes are listed in Table 1 as Paired Organs with Laterality? |
Abstract as multiple primaries per rule M8. There are bilateral fallopian tube primaries. It sounds like the "primary" tumor was identified in the right fallopian tube with bilateral spread of disease. Incidental STIC was also identifed in the left fallopian tube. Do not record the STIC as another primary. |
2021 |
|
|
20210044 | Diagnostic Confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Plasma Cell Myeloma: Can serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP) be used as a definitive diagnostic method in the absence of a bone marrow biopsy? Is it appropriate to assign code 5 (Positive laboratory test/marker study) if there is no histological confirmation? See Discussion. |
Patient was diagnosed with lambda myeloma based on the M spike found on serum protein electrophoresis. A bone marrow biopsy was performed, but it was an insufficient sample. SPEP is not listed in the Hematopoietic Database as a lab test that can be used as a definitive diagnostic method. Since the physician did base the diagnosis on the SPEP result, would it be appropriate to assign code 5 (Positive laboratory test/marker study) since there was no histological confirmation? Under code 5, the Hematopoietic Manual states: Laboratory tests are listed under Definitive Diagnostic Methods in the Hematopoietic Database. |
Assign code 5 in Diagnostic Confirmation. We consulted with an expert hematopathologist who stated that SPEP would qualify for a diagnostic confirmation code of 5. He also stated that normally a SPEP is followed by a bone marrow biopsy. SPEP has been added to the Definitive Diagnostic Methods for plasma cell myeloma (9732/3). |
2021 |
|
|
20210026 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Lymphoma: Is a case initially submitted as C772 with histology coded 9591/3 (lymphoma, NOS) with a second case submitted as C162 with histology coded 9699/3 (extranodal marginal zone lymphoma of mucosal-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT lymphoma) a single primary or multiple primaries? See Discussion. |
The following cases were submitted to the central registry as separate primaries. First case submitted as C772 with histology coded 9591/3 (Lymphoma, NOS). Second case submitted as C162 with histology coded 9699/3 (MALT Lymphoma). Sequence 01 - 5/2016, Excisional biopsy pancreatic tail lymph node: suspicious for malignant B-cell lymphoma. No treatment recommended or administered. Sequence 02 - 2/2019, Stomach biopsy: MALT Lymphoma. Unknown if treatment was recommended or administered. Biopsy was only at this facility. Using the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Multiple Primaries/Histology rules, Rule M7 makes this a single primary. Note 4 instructs to change the histology of the initial abstract to the more specific histology (9699/3). If this is done, they would be multiple primaries per the exception within Rule M2. Should the histology on sequence 01 be changed to the MALT lymphoma and the cases would be multiple primaries or is this a single primary? |
Abstract two primaries and assign Primary 1: C772, 9699/3 Primary 2: C162, 9699/3 Per Rule M7, you would change the first case to histology 9699/3 based on Note 4 under Rule M7, Note 4: Change the histology code on the original abstract to the more specific histology when the original diagnosis is in your registry database. Use previous editions of ICD-O (i.e., ICD-O-1, ICD-O-2) or the Hematopoietic Database to assign the code applicable to the year of diagnosis for the more specific histology. Per Rule M2 this would be the same primary based on both being the same histology; however, there is an exception for MALT lymphomas (9699/3), which states: Abstract multiple primaries when a nodal MALT (C770-779, 9699/3) occurs before or after an extranodal MALT (all other sites, 9699/3). |
2021 |
|
|
20210028 | Histology/Biliary tract--Ampulla of Vater: What is the histology code for Intra ampullary papillary-tubular neoplasm in association with microinvasion? See discussion. |
Patient was diagnosed on 01/2020, and primary site on the pathology report is Ampulla of Vater (C241). Synoptic Report states histology as: Intra ampullary papillary-tubular neoplasm in association with microinvasion. I have reviewed the ICD-O-3 coding table and found histology Intraductal tubulopapillary neoplasm (C25_) code 8503/2. Based on the Matrix principle (Rule F on the ICD-O-3), I will change the behavior to 3 and code as 8503/3. If I look in ICDO-3, Tubulopapillary adenocarcinoma is coded 8263/3. |
Assign code 8163/3. Based on the microinvasion, the correct term for this neoplasm is pancreatobiliary-type carcinoma. Unfortunately, WHO did not provide all synonyms or related terms for some of the new ICD-O codes. Pathologists may continue using non-preferred terminology as well. |
2021 |
|
|
20210054 | Tumor Size--Clinical/EOD 2018--Prostate: How is Tumor Size--Clinical coded when there is an incidental finding of prostate cancer on prostatectomy for another reason? See Discussion. |
SEER*RSA states EOD Primary Tumor should be coded to 800 for an incidental finding of prostate cancer on prostatectomy for other reasons. The SEER Manual states to assign code 000 for Tumor Size--Clinical when EOD Primary Tumor is coded to 800; however, the definition for Tumor Size--Clinical indicates clinical classification is composed only of diagnostic workup prior to treatment. If there is no clinical workup for an incidental finding of prostate cancer, code 000 does not seem appropriate (does not meet criteria for clinical classification). Code 999 seems more appropriate for incidental findings during surgery for other reasons. The SEER Manual does not provide this exception in the current instruction. |
Assign code 000 for Tumor Size--Clinical when EOD Primary Tumor is coded 800 (No evidence of primary tumor). Code 000 indicates no tumor was found since there was no clinical workup to identify this incidentally found cancer. This is a special instruction for cases coded 800 in EOD Primary Tumor. Text fields can be used to record details. |
2021 |
|
|
20210049 | Histology/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Leukemia: Is this the correct histology for a case of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with recurrent genetic abnormalities? If the only information was AML with recurrent genetic abnormalities,"what code would you use: AML, NOS (9861/3) or AML with recurrent genetic abnormalities (9896/3)? See Discussion. |
12/3/2020 Pathology: AML: Blasts 40% of nucleated cells. CD45 positive, CD34 negative, CD 117+, CD13 positive, CD33 positive in 59.6% and HLA-DR was dim and myeloperoxidase was dim. Cytogenetics normal karyotype. The next generation sequencing detected IDH 2p.(R172K)c515>A. Because this was AML NOS, we consulted with the physician. The physician stated the patient had AML with recurrent genetic abnormalities"and the basis for the diagnosis was the IDH-2 mutation identified on Next Generation Sequencing. We assigned 9896/3, based on the physician's interpretation of the pathology. This histology is being questioned. |
We found that the term AML with recurrent genetic abnormalities, NOS"was incorrectly included as an alternate name with code 9896/3. We followed back with our expert hematopathologist and he stated that this should have been coded to 9861/3 (AML, NOS), for AML with recurrent genetic abnormalities, NOS. This alternate name has been added to 9861/3. (Note: The same alternate name has been removed from 9896/3). IDH-2 is not listed as a genetic abnormality for any of the histologies listed in the database. It could be that this is a new genetic marker for one of the AML with recurrent genetic abnormalities that we are not aware of. Without further clarification on which histology the IDH-2 would indicate, you would have to default to 9861/3. There are several histologies that are grouped as AML with recurrent genetic abnormalities."All of these have specific genetics listed as part of the ICD-O-3 histology name. 9865: Acute myeloid leukemia with t(6;9)(p23;q34.1) DEK-NUP214 9866: Acute promyelocytic leukemia with PML-RARA 9869: Acute myeloid leukemia with inv(3)(q21.3q26.2) or t(3;3)(q21.3;q26.2); GATA2, MECOM 9871: Acute myeloid leukemia with inv(16)(p13.1q22) or t(16;16)(p13.1;q22); CBFB-MYH11 9877: Acute myeloid leukemia with mutated NPM1 (2021+) 9878: Acute myeloid leukemia with biallelic mutation of CEBPA (2021+) 9879: Acute myeloid leukemia with mutated RUNX1 (2021+) 9896: Acute myeloid leukemia with t(8;21)(q22;q22.1); RUNX1-RUNX1T1 9897: Acute myeloid leukemia with t(9;11)(p21.3;q23.3); KMT2A-MLLT3 9911: Acute myeloid leukemia (megakaryoblastic) with t(1;22)(p13.3;q13.1); RBM15-MKL1 9912: Acute myeloid leukemia with BCR-ABL1 (2021)+ Of note, for the above histologies, since these are diagnosed solely based on genetics, diagnostic confirmation will always be 3. This instruction will be added to the Hematopoietic database for the 2022 update. |
2021 |
An official website of the United States government
