Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
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 |
|
|
20170049 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Pancreas: What is the histology code of invasive adenocarcinoma, non-mucinous with intraductal tubulopapillary features, moderately differentiated, from the pathology report final diagnosis of the pancreas? Does 'intraductal" refer to a non-invasive/in-situ component or describe the pattern of growth? |
Assign 8503/3, intraductal papillary adenocarcinoma with invasion, to capture the more specific features of the adenocarcinoma. Histology Rule H13 for Other Sites states to code the most specific histologic term. Examples include Adenocarcinoma and a more specific adenocarcinoma. Note: The specific histology may be identified as type, subtype, predominantly, with features of, major, or with ___ differentiation. |
2017 | |
|
|
20170051 | Reportability--Liver: Is intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the liver a reportable diagnosis? See Discussion. |
Pathology shows: Right liver lobe, partial hepatectomy " intraductal papillary neoplasm with high grade dysplasia. |
Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the liver with high grade dysplasia is reportable. While most IPMNs arise from the pancreas, there exists a subset of IPMN of the biliary tract (BT-IPMN). Code as 8453/2. For more details, see the Reportability section of the SEER manual, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2016/SPCSM_2016_maindoc.pdf |
2017 |
|
|
20170037 | Primary site--Other and Unspecified Urinary Organs: What is the topography code for a Skene's gland adenocarcinoma? |
The most appropriate available topography code is C681, paraurethral gland. Skene's gland is also referred to as paraurethral gland. |
2017 | |
|
|
20170006 | Diagnostic confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms (Lymphoma): To code "3" in Diagnostic Confirmation, does the genetic testing need to confirm a specific histology or is it enough that is simply rules out others? See Discussion. |
For example, pathology states: Right axillary lymph node, excision: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (see note). COMMENT: FISH studies were performed that were negative for BCL-6, c-Myc/IgH, CCND1/IgH and IgH/BCl-2 gene rearrangement, ruling out the most common forms of double-hit lymphoma. Flow cytometry studies demonstrated positivity for CD45, CD20, HLA-Dr, CD19, CD11c, CD22, CD30, CD38, CD79b, and FMC7. Low positivity was seen for CD5. No reactivity was seen for CD10, CD23, CD25, CD103 or CD123. |
Both histologic plus immunophenotyping or genetic testing should be positive to assign code 3 for Diagnostic Confirmation. The Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Coding Manual Diagnostic Confirmation instructions state, assign 3 for Cases positive for neoplasm being abstracted (including acceptable ambiguous terminology and provisional diagnosis) AND Immunophenotyping, genetic testing, or JAK2 is listed in the Definitive Diagnosis in the Heme DB AND a.) Confirms the neoplasm OR b.) Identifies a more specific histology (not preceded by ambiguous terminology). Because the patient was diagnosed with DLBCL by histology, and flow cytometry was positive for CD antigens (immunophenotyping) 20, 22, and 30 for DLBCL, code 3 is appropriate. |
2017 |
|
|
20170075 | MP/H Rules/Behavior--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted for a patient with a history of left breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) diagnosed in 2014 and bone lesions showing metastatic carcinoma consistent with a breast primary in 2017? See Discussion. |
Patient was diagnosed with DCIS of the left breast in June 2014. The patient had a simple mastectomy with 2 axillary lymph nodes removed. The final diagnosis was intermediate to high grade ductal carcinoma in situ, predominantly micropapillary type, forming a 1.4 cm mass. No invasive carcinoma identified. Margins negative. In April 2017, the patient was found to have parietoccipital bone lesions, which were resected. The resulting diagnosis was metastatic carcinoma, morphologically consistent with breast primary " See Comment: The previous breast lesion is not available for review at the time of signout. However, the tumor is morphologically compatible with a breast primary. SINQ 20110111 would not make this is new primary. However, it seems that rule M8 might apply. An invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days after diagnosis is a multiple primary. See Note 2: Abstract as multiple primaries even if the medical record/physician states it is recurrence or progression of disease. |
Assuming there were no other breast or any other tumors for this patient, change the behavior code to /3 on the original abstract for the 2014 breast primary. Similar to SINQ 20110111, there was likely a focus of invasion present in the original tumor that was not identified by the pathologist. The behavior code on the original abstract must be changed from a /2 to a /3 and the stage must be changed from in situ to localized. The MP/H rules do not apply to metastases. Therefore, rule M8 cannot be used. |
2017 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20170073 | Histology/Behavior--Brain and CNS: How are histology and behavior coded for a diagnosis of pineal anlage tumor in an infant? See Discussion. |
Patient is an 11 month old with brain biopsy showing final diagnosis of pineal anlage tumor. How are behavior and histology coded for this rare tumor? |
Assign 9362/3 for pineal anlage tumors. According to the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System, 4th edition, pineal anlage tumors, while extremely rare, share features with pineoblastoma. Although they have a distinct morphology, there is no other ICD-O-3 code for pineal anlage tumors. |
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 |
|
|
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 |
An official website of the United States government
