Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20240056 | Reportability/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How should this unusual 2023 pathology-only case be reported and coded for leukemia cutis? See Discussion. |
10/25/2023: Patient presents to dermatology office with a questionable drug eruption having 3 weeks of papular eruptions of Trunk (Left Chest). Punch biopsies were taken that came back as immature hemopoietic infiltrate with monocytic differentiation. Comment: Myelodysplastic syndrome and leukemia cutis are possibilities. Addendum Report: Additional stains were prepared. ERG is strongly positive. CD1a and S100 do not stain the atypical cells.The controls stain appropriately. CD123 perform with appropriate control is also negative. The pattern is that of so-called "leukemia cutis" which could be seen in the clinical setting of myelodysplasia, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) or precursor to acute myelomonocytic leukemia (AMML). Recommend work up. The only available information at present is a diagnosis of leukemia cutis, and that there was no prior history of a hematological malignancy in this patient. |
Report this case of leukemia cutis and code to bone marrow (C421) and leukemia NOS (9800/3) based on the information provided. Update the abstract if new information becomes available. Leukemia cutis is the rare infiltration of neoplastic leukocytes into the epidermis, dermis, or subcutis from an existing leukemia that results in clinically identifiable cutaneous lesions. Leukemia cutis may precede, follow, or occur concurrently with the diagnosis of systemic leukemia. It is an advanced phase of the leukemia having a poor prognosis that also strongly correlates with additional sites of extramedullary involvement. This can alter the appropriate treatment regimen for a patient. It is a type of "metastasis" or spread of the leukemia cells. The "conventional" definition for leukemia cutis is the infiltration of skin from a bone marrow primary. It is most often diagnosed via skin biopsy—punch, shave, etc., utilizing IHC/biomarker testing and is commonly associated with CMML and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). As such, it a reportable condition especially when preceding a confirmed systemic leukemia diagnosis. In this situation, the diagnosis date would be the date of the positive leukemia cutis skin bx—punch, shave, etc. The case should be coded to C421; 9800/3 Leukemia NOS until the official systemic leukemia diagnosis is rendered. If possible, follow back should be conducted to determine the specific systemic leukemia histology (CMML; AML) and the treatment received. If the leukemia cutis follows or occurs concurrently with the diagnosis of a systemic leukemia, it is NOT a separate primary but merely an advanced stage of the systemic leukemia diagnosis. |
2024 |
|
|
20240022 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology: When should the designation of “poorly differentiated” be used to further specify histology for carcinoma, NOS (8010) as undifferentiated carcinoma (8020)? See Discussion. |
The term “poorly differentiated carcinoma (NOS)” is listed as related to “undifferentiated carcinoma (NOS)” in the ICD-O 3.2. It is also listed in the Solid Tumor Rules for Urinary Table 2 (Urinary subtypes), Other Sites Table 16 (uterine corpus primaries) and Table 19 (vulvar primaries). Are these the only sites in which one should code “poorly differentiated carcinoma (NOS)” as 8020 (undifferentiated carcinoma)? How is histology coded if the only microscopic confirmation is from a metastatic site showing “poorly differentiated carcinoma” (NOS) or “invasive carcinoma, poorly differentiated” (NOS)? Example 1: Primary pancreatic cancer diagnosed on imaging and confirmed with liver mets core biopsy showing “poorly differentiated carcinoma.” Immunostaining pattern was non-specific. No further workup or treatment was planned. Other Sites - Table 11 (Pancreas Histologies) includes undifferentiated carcinoma (8020/3) as a valid histology; however, the synonyms/subtypes/variants do not mention poorly differentiated carcinoma. How should histology be coded for this case? Example 2: Hemicolectomy with cecal tumor final diagnosis of “invasive carcinoma, poorly differentiated” and synoptic summary listing “Histologic type: Invasive carcinoma. Histologic grade: G3 of 4: poorly differentiated.” Colorectal Table 1 (Specific Histologies and Subtypes/Variants) includes undifferentiated adenocarcinoma/carcinoma 8020 as a subtype of adenocarcinoma NOS. There is no mention of poorly differentiated in this context. How should histology be coded for this case? |
Assign code 8020/3 when the histologic type specifically includes the term of poorly differentiated, dedifferentiated, undifferentiated, or anaplastic undifferentiated carcinoma along with carcinoma as terms vary depending on the primary site. When the term poorly differentiated is included in the grade section only of the pathology report or only mentions poorly differentiated carcinoma without further substantiation from a pathology report as in examples 1 and 2, do not use code 8020/3. The histology code 8020/3 and terms may be used for selected primary sites as included in the Solid Tumor Rules, WHO Classification of Tumors series (latest versions), and the Site/Morphology Validation List including Nasal cavity Nasopharynx Salivary glands Urinary sites Colon, rectosigmoid, rectum Esophagus Stomach Gallbladder and extrahepatic bile duct Pancreas Thyroid Ovary Uterine corpus Vagina Uterine cervix (also referred to as unclassifiable in WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th ed.) For sites other than those listed, if the diagnosis is poorly differentiated carcinoma, code 8010/3 and poorly differentiated in the grade field. |
2024 |
|
|
20240035 | Solid Tumor Rules--Urinary: The example used in Rule M15 of the Urinary Solid Tumor Rules refers to the same row in Table 3. Should the example say Table 2 since Table 3 is non-reportable urinary tumors. See Discussion. |
Rule M15 Abstract a single primary when synchronous, separate/non-contiguous tumors are on the same row in Table 2 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions. Note: The same row means the tumors are • The same histology (same four-digit ICD-O code) OR • One is the preferred term (column 1) and the other is a synonym for the preferred term (column 2) OR • A NOS (column 1/column 2) and the other is a subtype/variant of that NOS (column 3) OR • A NOS histology in column 3 with an indented subtype/variant Example: TURBT shows invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma 8130/3 and CIS/in situ urothelial carcinoma 8120/2. Abstract a single primary. Papillary urothelial carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma are on the same row in Table 3. |
The example used in Rule M15 of the Urinary Solid Tumor Rules should refer to Table 2. We will update this in the next revision of the Rules. |
2024 |
|
|
20240070 | Reportability/Histology: Does Cancer Pathology Coding Histology And Registration Terminology (Cancer PathCHART) determine if the histology is reportable or do we have to use the Excel ICD-O-3.2 spreadsheet? |
The CPC ICD-O-3 Site Morphology Validation Lists (SMVLs) designate all tumor site-morphology combinations that are either valid or impossible as determined for the sites reviewed by the Cancer PathCHART initiative. These lists provide information on the Validity Status of specific tumor site and morphology combinations, similar to the way the ICD-O-3 SEER Site/Histology Validation List used to. However, the CPC SMVLs do not include information on the reportability of specific tumor site and morphology combinations. For tumor reportability, you will continue to use the Excel ICD-O-3.2 spreadsheets posted to the NAACCR ICD-O-3 Coding Updates website: https://www.naaccr.org/icdo3/, and the most recent SEER Manual and federal, state, local, and other standard setters' reportability requirements. |
2024 | |
|
|
20240074 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: How is histology coded for nasopharyngeal non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma, undifferentiated type? See Discussion. |
Example: Patient had a 2023 nasopharyngeal mass biopsy showing “Nasopharyngeal non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma, undifferentiated type.” The Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules (STRs) do not include an H Rule that instructs us how to code histology when there are two subtypes/variants present for a head and neck primary, nor does the STR define undifferentiated carcinoma as a subtype/variant for 8072. The WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors states non-keratinizing nasopharyngeal carcinoma (non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is the most common subtype for nasopharyngeal ca, but that non-keratinizing can be subdivided into undifferentiated and differentiated subtypes. Should histology be 8020 (undifferentiated carcinoma) or 8072 (non-keratinizing SCC)? |
Assign histology as 8072 for non-keratinizing SCC, undifferentiated subtype. WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors, 5th edition assigns 8072/3 to squamous cell carcinoma, non-keratinizing, NOS in the nasopharynx. As the tumor exhibits a variety of architectural patterns and appearances histologically, they can be further classified as undifferentiated or differentiated subtypes. These subtypes do not change the histology code. |
2024 |
|
|
20240013 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Testis: Can a definition for "teratoma with somatic-type malignancy" (9084) be added to the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules? See Discussion. |
We included this histology in SEER Workshop Case 12 and the histology coding accuracy was less than 40%. From emails we received, it is clear that registrars are unaware that the "somatic type malignancy" can vary but code 9084 applies when the diagnosis is teratoma WITH any non-germ cell tumor component. It may be helpful to add a definition for "teratoma with somatic-type malignancy" (9084) to the Solid Tumor Manual. |
We will add the same definition for teratoma with malignant transformation found in the ovary table: 9084/3 Teratoma with malignant transformation when a malignant (/3) histology arises in a benign teratoma. Teratoma with malignant transformation and teratoma with somatic-type malignancy are synonoyms. The term teratoma with somatic-type malignancy is outdated and no longer recommended. |
2024 |
|
|
20240024 | Reportability/Histology: Is angiomyxoma (this includes borderline or behavior code /1 cases) of the soft tissue reportable? Can you provide us with coding guidelines for angiomyxoma for when its reportable or not reportable? |
Do not report angiomyxoma. ICD-O-3.2 assigns 8841/0 to this benign tumor. This includes superficial and deep (aggressive) angiomyxoma. |
2024 | |
|
|
20240017 | EOD/Prostate Pathologic Extension--Prostate: Is a pathology report from a prostate biopsy/transurethral resection of the prostate that states "with intraductal spread" extraprostatic/extracapsular extension or localized? |
Code as a localized, intracapsular tumor as ductal carcinoma in situ does not invade. Intraductal spread is describing the neoplasm spreading through the acinar/ductal cells in the prostate specimen. It is an in-situ type of spread and not invasive but almost always presents with an invasive tumor. |
2024 | |
|
|
20240045 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Prostate: Should cases be reported and abstracted based on ambiguous terminology, e.g., suspicious for prostate cancer, when the physician is not treating the case as malignant? See Discussion. |
Please comment on these specific scenarios.
|
For each of your scenarios, the medical record information indicates that the case is not reportable based on physician opinion. Do not abstract these cases. Remember that the ambiguous terms list is to be used as a last resort. The ideal way to approach abstracting situations when the medical record is not clear is to follow up with the physician. If the physician is not available, the medical record, and any other pertinent reports (e.g., pathology, etc.) should be read closely for the required information. See page 19 in the SEER Manual, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2024/SPCSM_2024_MainDoc.pdf |
2024 |
|
|
20240010 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Prostate: Other Sites Solid Tumor RulesTable 3 (Prostate Histologies), Note 1 in the Adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation (8574/3) row, conflicts with Note 2 and requires further clarification. See Discussion. |
Note 1 states that this histology is treatment-related neuroendocrine prostatic carcinoma demonstrating complete neuroendocrine differentiation or partial neuroendocrine differentiation with adenocarcinoma after androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Conversely, Note 2 says to code 8574/3 only when there is no history of previous prostate adenocarcinoma or history of androgen-deprivation therapy. The WHO Blue Book does confirm this is a treatment-related histology, so it seems we would only use this for an adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation (or even possibly a mixed histology tumor with adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma components) if the patient had previous treatment. If this histology is treatment-related, why would we use this code for a patient without a history of prostate adenocarcinoma or androgen-deprivation therapy? Should Note 2 be corrected? Does this histology apply to a post-treatment diagnosis of mixed adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma? If yes, should this clarification be added? |
Assign code 8574/3 only when there is A history of androgen-deprivation therapy or No history of previous prostate adenocarcinoma Prostate cancer with neuroendocrine differentiation (PCND) can present as untreated primary pathology (i.e., a new primary) or more commonly as a post ADT and androgen receptor inhibition resistance phenomenon. PCND is either a newly diagnosed prostate cancer or a result of ADT indicated for treatment of other prostate cancers or other non-cancer diagnoses (e.g., benign prostatic hyperplasia) but not for the PCND diagnosis. We will edit the notes to make them more clear. |
2024 |
An official website of the United States government
