Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20160078 | First course treatment/Radiation Therapy--Prostate: How do you code fiducial markers for prostate cases? |
Do not code fiducial markers as a form of radiation treatment; rather, code the radiation therapy in the radiation treatment section. Fiducial markers are small metal spheres, coils, or cylinders that are placed in or near a tumor to help guide the placement of radiation beams during treatment. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160036 | Reportability/Histology--Head and Neck: Is mammary analogue secretory carcinoma (MASC) of the left submandibular gland reportable and how is it coded? See Discussion. |
The physician is calling it an indolent tumor, pT3/NX/M0 stage 3 with positive margins. Is the correct code C509, 8502/3? |
Mammary analogue secretory carcinoma (MASC) is reportable. MASC is a recently described tumor that predominantly arises in the parotid gland. In this case, if the primary site is submandibular gland, assign C080. We contacted our expert pathologist and he stated that the best code to use for MASC is 8502/3. Override any edits triggered by the combination of C080 and 8502/3. |
2016 |
|
|
20160024 | Reportability--Melanoma: Please explain how a CTR is to interpret the guideline in the MP/H rules (Cutaneous Melanoma): Evolving melanoma (borderline evolving melanoma): Evolving melanoma are tumors of uncertain biologic behavior. Histological changes of borderline evolving melanoma are too subtle for a definitive diagnosis of melanoma in situ. Is this to mean that evolving melanoma in situ is not reportable? Or should we follow the guidelines in SEER Question 20130022 that states the reportability terms for melanoma and melanoma in situ. |
Follow the guidelines in SINQ 20130022 for now. When the MP/H rules are revised, new instructions will be implemented.
See also SINQ 200120078 and 20110069. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160037 | Reportability/MP/H Rules/Histology--Ovary: What is the histology code for an ovarian tumor described as a mucinous borderline tumor, intestinal type? |
Mucinous borderline tumor, intestinal type, of the ovary is not reportable. The behavior is /1. There is no applicable histology code for this histology when it ocurs in the ovary. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160064 | Behavior--Prostate: What is the correct behavior of intraductal carcinoma from a prostate biopsy with a Gleason score 4+4=8. While highly aggressive, but not suggestive of invasion, coding behavior as /2 seems inappropriate. |
WHO classifies intraductal carcinoma of the prostate 8500/2. According to WHO, "the hallmark of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate is a proliferation of prostate carcinoma cells that is within and may significantly expand the native prostatic ducts and acini, with the basal cell layer at least partially preserved." Further, differentiation between intraductal carcinoma and infiltrating high-grade carcinoma of the prostate may require basal cell stains. Under Prognosis, WHO states: " intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on prostate biopsies is often associated with high-grade cancer (with a mean Gleason score of 8) ." So while it may seem counter-intuitive, assign behavior code /2 when the diagnosis is intraductal carcinoma of the prostate. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160048 | Reportability--Kidney: Is renal cell neoplasm of oncocytosis reportable based on the pathology from a nephrectomy? See Discussion. |
The pathology diagnosis reads: Diagnosis Right Kidney, Laparoscopic Nephrectomy:
-Renal Cell Neoplasm of Oncocytosis (pT1a, pNX See Comment and Template).
-Surgical margins free of tumor.
Kidney, right, nephrectomy:
Tumor histologic type: Renal cell neoplasms of oncocytosis (see Note)
Sarcomatoid features (%) Not identified
Tumor size: 4 cm (greatest dimension largest tumor)
Other dimensions: 2.7 x 2.5 cm
Macroscopic extent of tumor: Limited to kidney
Focality: Multifocal
Number of tumors: 11 grossly visible, range 0.2 4 cm
Fuhrman grade: 2 of 4
Microscopic extent of tumor:
Perinephric fat invasion: Not identified
Renal sinus invasion: Not identified
Other: N/A
Renal vein involvement: Not identified
Adrenal gland present: No
Involved by tumor: N/A
Direct invasion or metastasis: N/A
Cancer at resection margin: Not identified
Location(s): N/A
Pathologic findings in nonneoplastic kidney: Multiple collections of oncocytic cells
Hilar lymph nodes present: No
Number of involved/number present: N/A
"Thank you for sending this fascinating case. In reviewing the H&E-stained slides, we recognize that multiple lesions of varying sizes are present within the specimen, some with features of oncocytoma, some with those of chromophobe RCC, and yet others with features of both. The immunohistochemical studies for CK7 performed at your institution serve to highlight this point with "mass #1" showing focal single cell staining typical of oncocytoma and "mass #2" showing a patchy and confluent staining pattern typical of chromophobe RCC. This second mass was also positive with special stain for Hales colloidal iron. As mentioned, the morphology varies somewhat in each tumor, however, every single mass is comprised of cells with eosinophilic (pink to bright red) cytopolasm. Some tumors show more tightly nested or sheet like growth, others are more tubular or microcystic. Another important feature, present on slides of renal cortex are microscopic tumorlets seemingly emanating from eosinophilic tubules. This finding, along with the presence of numerous oncocytic neoplasms is supportive of the above diagnosis. The absence of clinical features to suggest Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome is noted. Although these tumors are not recognized in the current classification of renal tumors, we regard these neoplasms as being a distinct entity, unrelated to both oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, and have applied the designation "renal tumor of oncocytosis" to such lesions (Gobbo S, et al. Renal cell neoplasms of oncocytosis have distinct morphologic, immunohistochemical, and cytogenetic profiles. Am J Surg Patholl 34:620-626, 2010). We concur that the expected behavior in these cases is one of indolence." |
Do not report Renal cell neoplasms of oncocytosis. According to our expert pathologist consultant, these neoplasms do not behave "in a malignant fashion." They are not currently classified as malignant and are not reportable to cancer registries. |
2016 |
|
|
20160051 | Diagnostic confirmation: When a CT guided Fine Needle Aspiration is performed and the pathology report indicates smears and cell block were prepared, if the diagnosis is positive for cancer, can you code diagnostic confirmation as 2 (positive cytology) because of the cell block? |
Yes, assign diagnostic confirmation code 2 for diagnosis based on smears and cell block from CT guided FNA. This reply pertains to solid tumors. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160026 | MP/H/Histology--Pituitary: Would you code Crooke cell adenoma as 8272/0 pituitary adenoma? |
Yes, code Crooke cell adenoma to 8272/0 pituitary adenoma. According to the WHO classification, it is a variant of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) producing adenoma (8272/0). |
2016 | |
|
|
20160019 | Reportability--Lung: Is a case of pulmonary metastatic leiomyoma (favored) vs. low grade leiomyosarcoma reportable, and if so, what is the primary site and histology code? See Discussion. |
Patient presents with an abnormal chest x-ray. PET reveals 4.6 cm left lower lobe mass and several additional bilateral nodules measuring up to 1.6 cm. Biopsy was recommended and is positive for metastatic histologically benign smooth muscle neoplasm. ER/PR are positive. Mayo consult on biopsy agrees with histology. The differential diagnosis includes benign metastasizing leiomyoma and low grade leiomyosarcoma. Comment: If these nodules remain small and do not progressively grow would consider this metastasizing leiomyoma. Physicians state bilateral pulmonary metastatic leiomyoma (favored) vs low grade leiomyosarcoma. Tamoxifen was started. Patient has a history of uterine fibroids. Several months later, imaging reveals stable bilateral multi pulmonary nodules and left lower lobe mass but persistent. Surgery was recommended but cancelled due to insurance. |
This case is not reportable based on the information provided. The histologic diagnosis is "metastatic histologically benign smooth muscle neoplasm." The physicians seem to agree with the histologic diagnosis, benign metastasizing leiomyoma (BML). The WHO classification and ICD-O-3 assign 8898/1 to "metastasizing leiomyoma." WHO states "This resembles a typical leiomyoma but it is found in the lungs of women with a history of typical uterine leiomyomas." A recent article states "Because of the hormone-sensitive characteristics of BML, treatments are based on hormonal manipulation along with either surgical or medical oophorectomy." Tamoxifen treatment is in keeping with the BML diagnosis. |
2016 |
|
|
20160011 | Reportability--Stomach: Are microcarcinoid tumors reportable? See discussion. |
SINQ 20081076 states carcinoid tumorlets of the lung are not reportable and are defined as being less than 5 mm in diameter and benign. Per the WHO Classification of Digestive Tumours, microcarcinoid tumors are precursor lesions/nodules measuring greater than 0.5 mm, but less than 5 mm (0.5 cm). Is the term microcarcinoid tumor equivalent to carcinoid tumorlet, and therefore not reportable? Or is a microcarcinoid tumor a reportable type of neuroendocrine tumor (NET)? |
Microcarcinoid and carcinoid tumors are reportable. The ICD-O-3 histology code is 8240/3. Microcarcinoid is a designation for neuroendocrine tumors of the stomach when they are less than 0.5 cm. in size. Neuroendocrine tumors of the stomach are designated carcinoid when they are 0.5 cm or larger.
The term microcarcinoid tumor is not equivalent to carcinoid tumorlet. |
2016 |
An official website of the United States government
