Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20190027 | EOD 2018/EOD Primary Tumor/Neoadjuvant treatment: If there is no clinical information available and all that is available is the post-neoadjuvant information, is it better to code EOD unknown (999) or use the post-neoadjuvant information to code EOD? See Discussion. |
The Extent of Disease (EOD) Manual states: Neoadjuvant (preoperative) therapy: If the patient receives neoadjuvant (preoperative) systemic therapy (chemotherapy, immunotherapy) or radiation therapy, code the clinical information if that is the farthest extension documented. If the post-neoadjuvant surgery shows more extensive disease, code the extension based on the post-neoadjuvant information. |
Code EOD Primary Tumor using the post neoadjuvant information for this case. Since the only information you have is the post neoadjuvant, code that. EOD combines clinical and pathological information. |
2019 |
|
|
20190066 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Breast: How is the histology coded for a metastatic carcinoma, consistent with primary breast carcinoma, when no other pathology information is available? See Discussion. |
The 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules Equivalent Terms and Definitions - Changes from 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules states: Mammary carcinoma is a synonym for carcinoma no special type (NST)/duct carcinoma not otherwise specified (NOS) 8500. It will no longer be coded as carcinoma NOS 8010. Should metastatic carcinomas of breast origin be 8500, or is code 8010 (carcinoma NOS) more applicable because histology coding from metastatic sites is not as reliable? |
Code as 8500/3 as it is the only tissue available for this carcinoma associated with a breast primary. Breast carcinoma NST/NOS is now coded as 8500. |
2019 |
|
|
20190102 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: What is the histology code of an external ear lesion when the dermatopathology report is the only available information (follow-up with the physician or pathologist is not possible) and the final diagnosis is malignant spindle cell neoplasm, most consistent with atypical fibroxanthoma? See Discussion. |
There are two histologies provided in the final diagnosis, malignant spindle cell neoplasm (8004/3) and atypical fibroxanthoma (8830/3). There is a definitive diagnosis of the non-specific histology, but the more specific histology is only described using ambiguous terminology. The external ear (C442) is included in the Head and Neck schema for diagnosis year 2018 and later. The Head and Neck Histology Rules indicate ambiguous terminology cannot be used to code a more specific histology. So ignoring the atypical fibroxanthoma, because it is modified by ambiguous terminology, we are left with a non-reportable site and histology combination (C442, 8004/3). Diagnoses of malignant atypical fibroxanthomas are regularly diagnosed using the syntax above in our area. Follow-up with the physician or pathologist is generally not possible as these cases are received from dermatopathology clinics only. The pathology report is the only information that will be received. If the reportable diagnosis of malignant atypical fibroxanthoma is ignored per the current Solid Tumor Rules, incidence cases will be lost. |
By definition, atypical fibroxanthoma (AFX) is a diagnosis of exclusion. Markers of specific differentiation must be negative. As written in your example, neither histology is reportable for skin. If possible, clarify the behavior of the AFX (8830/1) with the pathologist to determine reportability of the case. |
2019 |
|
|
20190085 | Primary site/Histology: Are the 2018 ICD-O Histology Update topography codes intended to specify the most common sites for these new codes and can the histology be coded if they occur in other sites? See Discussion. |
Example 1: Endometrial biopsy final diagnosis is high-grade serous adenocarcinoma. Should we code this endometrial primary with histology 8441 (serous adenocarcinoma) because C54.X topography code is not listed in the applicable 2018 ICD-O-3 codes Histology Update for the new morphology, or should we apply the new histology code 8461 (high-grade serous carcinoma)? The NAACCR implementation guideline section 2.3 includes an important reminder that: Many of the new codes, terms, and behaviors listed in this update are site-specific and do not apply to all sites. Applicable C codes will be noted next to the term in bold font. However, this is followed by the more ambiguous instruction for edits that appear to imply the combination with non-listed sites is possible: These site- and histology-specific combinations will not be added to the Impossible combination edit. However, if a site other than the one listed with the morphology code is assigned, the result will be an edit requiring review. This is Interfield Edit 25. |
The NAACCR Guidelines for ICD-O-3 Histology Code and Behavior Update Implementation, effective January 1, 2018, state: Currently in ICD-O-3, when a topography (C code) is listed in parentheses next to the morphology term, it indicates morphology is most common to that site. It may occur in other sites as well. Many of the new codes, terms, and behaviors listed in this update are site-specific and do not apply to all sites. Please review the Comments to determine which histology codes are specific to sites. You may use sites not listed as the suggested site; however, it will generate an edit error for review and verification of the appropriate site. |
2019 |
|
|
20190029 | Reportability--Testis: Is demarcated scar tissue with atrophic seminiferous tubules and cortical bone consistent with burnt-out germ cell tumor and no evidence of germ cell neoplasia in situ (GCNIS) reportable? See Discussion. |
The patient is a 34 year old who presented with testicular pain radiating into the abdomen approximately 1 month before orchiectomy in 2018. CT abdomen/pelvis: Multiple focal sclerotic bone lesions. Given the lack of change from July 2014, these are likely benign bone islands. No adenopathy mentioned. He has no prior history of germ cell tumor nor any surgery for any tumor/cancer before this. Pathology: Testis, left, radical orchiectomy: - Demarcated scar tissue (1.3 cm), with atrophic seminiferous tubules and cortical bone consistent with burnt-out germ cell tumor. No evidence of germ cell neoplasia in situ (GCNIS). - Margins are unremarkable. |
Burnt-out germ cell tumor (9080/1) is not reportable. According to WHO Classification of Urinary System and Male Genital Organ, regressed germ cell tumors are germ cell tumors that have undergone partial or complete regression leaving a generally well-delineated nodular focus of scar or fibrosis in the testis. |
2019 |
|
|
20190010 | Reportability/Histology--Bladder: Is papillary urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential (PUNLMP) (8130/1) reportable when also referred to as papillary transitional cell carcinoma, grade 1, no invasion (8130/2) previously? See Discussion. |
The pathology report reads: Urinary bladder, tumor over right ureteral orifice, biopsy: Urinary bladder mucosa (urothelium) and submucosa (lamina propria), with papillary urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential (previously known as papillary transitional cell carcinoma, grade 1 of 3), no invasion identified. |
This case is not reportable. PUNLMP (8130/1) is the diagnosis stated by the pathologist for this case and PUNLMP is not reportable. The information in parentheses is informational in this case and does not change the pathologist's diagnosis. According to WHO Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs, 4th edition, there is variation of architectural and cytological features between PUNLMP and papillary urothelial carcinoma, low grade, reflecting grading changes from an older classification system. |
2019 |
|
|
20190054 | Update to current manual/Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Brain and CNS: Table 6 (Non-Malignant CNS Equivalent Terms and Definitions) lists as a subtype/variant of craniopharyngioma 9350/1. This is not a valid histology per the ICD-O-3 or the 2018 ICD-O-3 Update Table. Is this actually supposed to read, ? |
Adamantinomatous craniopharyngioma (9351/1) is a subtype of craniopharygioma. We will correct the Non-Malignant CNS Solid Tumor Rules in the next update. |
2019 | |
|
|
20190032 | Summary Stage 2018--Lung: Are ground-glass lung nodules coded as distant for Summary Stage? See Discussion. |
Chest x-ray: Multifocal pneumonia in left lung; possibility of masses in left lung not excluded. Chest CT: 4 large ground-glass masses in LUL (largest 46mm); beginning of Tree-In-Bud appearance in LUL; 2 small ground-glass nodules in right lung. Lung LUL biopsy: Adenocarcinoma, Solid Predominant. No further information as patient did not want to discuss treatment options. Per the AJCC book and CAnswer Forum, multifocal classification should be applied equally whether the lesions are in the same lobe OR in different ipsilateral lobes OR contralateral lobes, cT2b(m), cN0, cM0. |
Do not assume that ground glass presentation is consistent with a neoplasm. There are numerous causes of a ground glass lung condition such as sarcoidosis or pulmonary fibrosis. A ground glass lung opacity may also be observed in conditions such as alveolar proteinosis, desquamative pneumonitis, hypersensitive pneumonitis, and drug-induced or radiation-induced lung disease. If an area of ground glass opacity persists in the lung, it is usually classified as an adenocarcinoma, a classification that ranges from premalignant lesions to invasive disease. This is in line with AJCC that states to stage based on the largest tumor determined to be positive for cancer. To Summary Stage the case example provided, ignore the lesions in the contralateral lung (do not assume that they are malignant). There are multiple lesions in the left lung, but once again, do not assume that those not biopsied are malignant. This leaves us with the lesion confirmed to be malignant, making this a Localized (code 1) tumor. |
2019 |
|
|
20190106 | Tumor Size--Esophagus: Can information from the endoscopy procedure that implies a size of 3 cm for Tumor Size--Clinical be used for Esophagus? See Discussion. |
1-28-2018 CT Scan: 2.4 cm mass 2-15-2018 Endoscopy: Mass was present 22 to 25 cm. Biopsies were taken with cold forceps for histology; biopsy positive. |
For the case you describe, we would record the clinical tumor size stated on the CT report. The priority order for clinical tumor size is as follows. 1. Biopsy or operative (surgical exploration) report 2. Imaging 3. Physical exam We do not recommend coding tumor size based on an inferred tumor size from a description such as "Mass was present 22 to 25 cm." Look for an actual measurement of the mass, or a stated tumor size. Use text fields to record details. |
2019 |
|
|
20190105 | Histology--Brain and CNS: What morphology code should be assigned to a low-grade glial/glioneuronal neoplasm? See Discussion. |
Pathology Diagnosis: Left temporal lesion - Low grade glial/glioneuronal neoplasm BRAF mutant. Pathologist Comment: The histopathological appearance of this lesion does not allow for a definitive diagnosis. However, the low-grade appearance, fibrillary nature, immunohistochemical profile, and the presence of a BRAF V600E mutation allow this to be categorized as a low-grade glial or possibly glioneuronal tumor. Despite the lack of exact classification this neoplasm can be expected to behave in a very indolent manner consistent with a WHO grade I classification. |
Assign 9413/0 for glioneuronal neoplasm. We consulted with our expert neuropathologist about the histology "glioneuronal neoplasm." This term is relatively new and has not yet been recognized by WHO or assigned an ICD-O code. Until such time that WHO determines a code for this neoplasm, our expert instructed us to use 9413/0. Since this is not a recognized neoplasm it is not included in the solid tumor rules. |
2019 |
An official website of the United States government
