System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 04/27/2025 11:31 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20170071

Reportability/Brain and CNS: Is incidentaloma reportable from brain and central nervous system (CNS) imaging? See Discussion.

We are seeing the term "incidentaloma" on magnetic resonance imaging (MR) reports of head and also with physician statements. For example, this MR of the head: Impression--Suboptimal study due to motion degradation. Heterogeneously enhancing pituitary gland without evidence of acute abnormality. A 3 mm focus of relative hypoenhancement in the left gland is favored to represent an incidentaloma. Advise correlation with clinical findings.

Also, there are cases where the scans show meningioma and then at a later date it is stated to be an incidentaloma in physician notes.

Is the term "incidentaloma" alone reportable, if the term "tumor" for CNS cases is never stated? When I googled the term, it is stated to mean "tumor."

The term "incidentaloma" alone is not reportable. Look for a reportable term elsewhere or in later information. When the term "incidentaloma" is used on a magnetic resonance imaging (MR) report, it refers to "a disease or physical condition found as a secondary by-product of capturing the necessary volume of tissue within the field of view of the MR examination" (http://radsource.us/incidentaloma). It is not necessarily neoplastic.

 2017
20170076

MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is meningioma with atypical features coded as meningioma (9530/0) or atypical meningioma (9539/1)? See Discussion.

Pathology report microscopic description: The tumor is a meningothelial neoplasm (EMA+; BCL-2 and CD34 negative) with prominent collagen deposition. Necrosis and prominent nucleoli are present; no other atypical features are seen. Mitoses are present, up to 2 per 10 high-powered fields. Final Diagnosis: Dura, bicoronal craniotomy (specimen A): Meningioma with atypical features.

There is no rule in benign brain and CNS section of Multiple Primary/Histology (MP/H) Rules stating to code the most specific histologic term when the diagnosis is (something less specific, i.e., adenocarcinoma). This rule is in other site chapters of MP/H but appears missing in the benign brain and CNS section.

Code as meningioma, NOS (9530/0). This lesion has some of the features of an atypical meningioma (necrosis and prominent nucleoli), but it does not fit the definition of atypical meningioma in WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System. Use text fields to document the details.

 2017
20170052

MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: Is urothelial carcinoma, high-grade, predominantly solid type, coded as 8120/3 or 8230/3? See Discussion.

Urinary bladder: Invasive urothelial carcinoma, high-grade, 4.5cm, predominantly solid type, arising in background of carcinoma in-situ, carcinoma grossly extends into perivesical adipose tissue; lymph-vascular invasion is seen.

Assign histology code 8120/3, urothelial carcinoma, NOS. Solid type is not a recognized variant of urothelial tumors and likely represents the appearance of the urothelial cells within the tumor and not a specific histologic type.

 2017
20170036

Grade--Prostate: How are the prostate-related fields completed when documentation in pathology reports only includes one of the new grade groups? See Discussion.

Our pathologists have starting to use a new prostate cancer grading system that was adopted by WHO in 2016. The new grading scheme correlates with the prior Gleason grading scheme as follows:

Grade Group 1 = Gleason score 6 or less

Grade Group 2 = Gleason score 3+4=7

Grade Group 3 = Gleason score 4+3 = 7

Grade Group 4 = Gleason score 8

Grade Group 5 = Gleason score 9-10

Our pathologists are no longer dictating the Gleason Primary and Secondary Pattern values nor the Gleason's Score. Reverse correlation from the new grade groups to the required patterns and score are difficult with Grade Groups 2 and 3 needing to be distinguished from one another and Grade Group 5 including two unique scores.

The prostate-related fields include:

Collaborative Site Specific Factor 7: Gleason's Primary Pattern and Secondary Pattern Values on Needle Core Biopsy/TURP

Collaborative Site Specific Factor 8: Gleason's Score On Needle Core Biopsy/TURP

Collaborative Site Specific Factor 9: Gleason's Primary Pattern and Secondary Pattern Values on Prostatectomy/Autopsy

Collaborative Site Specific Factor 10: Gleason's Score on Prostatectomy/Autopsy

When all you have is the grade group, you may use the following table to convert the Prostate Grade Groups to the appropriate code for the indicated fields.

Grade Group Gleason Score Gleason Pattern SSF7 SSF8 SSF9 SSF10 Grade/diff

Grade Group 1 6 or less <=3+3 099 999 099 999 1

Grade Group 2 7 3+4 034 007 034 007 2

Grade Group 3 7 4+3 043 007 043 007 2

Grade Group 4 8 4+4, 3+5, 5+3 999 999 999 999 3

Grade Group 5 9-10 4+5, 5+4, 5+5 099 999 099 999 3

 2017
20170081

Grade/Neuroblastoma: What grade is to be used when pathology states only differentiating retroperitoneal neuroblastoma?

For cases diagnosed prior to 2018

Assign grade code 2 for "differentiating" retroperitoneal neuroblastoma. The rationale of our expert pathologist advisor is that "it leaves the grade 1 category open (since a "well differentiated neuroblastoma" is actually called ganglioneuroblastoma), and it also avoids putting "differentiating" into what is usually a well differentiated category."

Additionally, assign grade code 3 to a poorly differentiated retroperitoneal neuroblastoma and grade code 4 to an undifferentiated retroperitoneal neuroblastoma.

For cases diagnosed 2018 and later

Follow the instructions for coding grade in SEER*RSA

 2017
20170026

Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules/Multiple primaries--Kidney, renal pelvis: Are tumors diagnosed more than three years apart multiple primaries according to Rule M7 in a case with metastasis? See Discussion.

5/27/02 Transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT)--papillary transitional cell carcinoma, +lamina propria, no muscle invasion. All urine cytologies in 2011 and 2012 (only follow up received) show no malignancy. 3/11/15 Lung fine needle aspirate--poorly differentiated carcinoma consistent with urothelial carcinoma. 4/30/15 Renal pelvis biopsy--low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma, no lamina propria invasion, no muscularis propria invasion.

Rule M7 applies. Abstract the bladder diagnosis and the renal pelvis diagnosis as separate primaries.

The lung diagnosis is metastatic. The MP/H rules do not apply to metastatic tumors.

 2017
20170074

Reportability--Kidney: Is a renal cell neoplasm stated to be multilocular clear cell renal cell neoplasm of low malignant potential a reportable tumor if the physician refers to the tumor as renal cell carcinoma in a follow-up note after surgery? If reportable, how is histology coded? See Discussion.

The partial nephrectomy final diagnosis is renal cell neoplasm. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) Summary lists histology as: multilocular clear cell neoplasm of low malignant potential. The diagnosis comment adds: This neoplasm currently termed multilocular clear cell renal cell neoplasm of low malignant potential (WHO 2016), was previously termed cystic renal cell carcinoma.

For now, report the case and code to 8310/3.

In the 3rd Ed WHO Tumors of the Urinary System, multilocular clear cell RCC is coded as 8310/3, however the recent 4th Ed WHO Tumors of Urinary System notes this term is obsolete and a synonym for multilocular cystic renal neoplasm of low malignant potential (8316/1) which would be non-reportable. Per WHO 3rd Ed these tumors never recur or metastasize which may be why the behavior code is shown as /1. The standard setters must review this terminology change in relation to reporting the case as it may impact incidence rates.

 2017
20170002

Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are cavernous sinus meningiomas reportable? See Discussion.

 

Per SINQ 20160068, sphenoid wing meningiomas are reportable (unless stated to be intraosseous) because they arise from the meninges overlying or along the sphenoid wing/sphenoid bone. These are intracranial and not intraosseous meningiomas.

Therefore, wouldn't this logic also apply to cavernous sinus meningiomas? These are tumors that arise from the meninges of an intracranial space, not from bone or soft tissue. The cavernous sinus is a "true dural venous sinus" within the skull. While not specifically about meningiomas, SINQ 20071095 states a benign tumor in the cavernous sinus is coded to C490. This SINQ would still seem valid for a benign tumor like a blood vessel tumor, but not for a meningioma that doesn't arise from soft tissue or blood vessels.

Cavernous sinus meningiomas are reportable, as the meningioma arises in the meninges unless stated otherwise. This is similar to sphenoid wing meningiomas.

2017
20170064

Grade/Histology--Rectum: How should histology and grade be coded for high grade neuroendocrine tumor (NET) (WHO Grade 3) of the rectum? See Discussion.

Rectal mass biopsy final diagnosis: High grade neuroendocrine tumor (WHO Grade 3). Neither SINQ 20170033 nor 20160023 address coding histology or grade for neuroendocrine tumors that are designated as high grade and/or WHO grade 3.

Assign histology code 8246/3. Assign grade code 4 based on the description "high grade." A high-grade neuroendocrine "tumor" is actually a neuroendocrine "carcinoma" (NEC) according to WHO Classification of Tumors of the Digestive System. If possible, verify this interpretation with the diagnosing pathologist. Use text fields to document the details of this case.

 2017
20170040

MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code for lung cancer case identified pathologically from a metastatic site that differs from the histology stated by the physician? See Discussion.

Bronchial washings were negative. Four lymph nodes were biopsied and found to have metastatic poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma. The treating oncologist calls it small cell carcinoma, extensive stage, and treats patient with carboplatin and VP-16 (etoposide) The MP/H rule says to take path/cyto from a metastatic site if no pathology/cytology available from the primary site. Is the physician's statement and treatment taken into consideration here?

Code the histology based on the pathology report from the lymph node biopsy for this case. Pathology has higher priority than a physician's statement for assigning histology code. Use text fields to document the physician's statement.

 2017