MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Melanoma: How many melanoma primaries should be abstracted if, during the workup for a metastatic melanoma of an unknown cutaneous site, an in situ melanoma is also discovered? See Discussion.
Patient has diagnosis of melanoma with spindle cell features found in a right lower lobectomy specimen. Chart notes indicate this is metastatic from a cutaneous primary of unknown site. Further work up includes a biopsy of the tip of the nose, which is diagnostic for in situ melanoma. Should this be abstracted as two separate primaries, one for an invasive melanoma of unknown primary site and the other for an in situ melanoma of the skin on the tip of the nose? Which MP/H Rule would apply?
Yes, abstract this as two separate primaries, an invasive melanoma of unknown primary site and an in situ melanoma of the skin on the tip of the nose. Rule M3 applies.
Would this situation be 2 primaries - 1993 Renal pelvis and 1994 Bladder with the 2015 being the same primary as 1993 Renal pelvis? Or 3 primaries - 1993 Renal pelvis, 1994 Bladder, 2015 Bladder?
Abstract four primaries, 1993 renal pelvis, 1994 bladder, 2013 bladder, and 2015 bladder.
For the remaining diagnoses, the 2007 MP/H rules apply. The 2013 bladder diagnosis is a new primary per rule M7. The 2014 bladder diagnosis is not a new primary per rule M6. The 2015 bladder diagnosis is a new primary per rule M5.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How should histology be coded for a breast primary with resection final diagnosis of "Ductal carcinoma with neuroendocrine features?" See Discussion.
Should the histology for "Ductal carcinoma with neuroendocrine features" be coded to 8500 (Ductal carcinoma, NOS) or 8574 (Adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation)?
Code the histology to 8574/3 for Ductal carcinoma with neuroendocrine features.
Ductal carcinoma is also called "invasive breast carcinoma of no special type." WHO classifies Invasive breast carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation as 8574/3.
Reportability/Histology-Gallbladder: Is high grade biliary intraepithelial neoplasia of the gallbladder reportable?
High grade biliary intraepithelial neoplasia of the gallbladder is reportable. Assign code 8148/2. It is also known as biliary intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3, or BilIN-3.
Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Liver: Is a statement of LI-RADS 5 or LI-RADS 4 diagnostic of HCC? See discussion.
We are seeing more use of LI-RAD categories on scans. The final impression on the scan will be LI-RADS Category 5 or LI-RADS Category 4, with no specific statement of HCC. The scans include a blanket statement with the definitions of the LI-RADS categories as below.
LIRADS (v2014) categories
M - Possible non-HCC malignancy
1 - Definitely Benign
2 - Probably Benign
3 - Intermediate Probability for HCC
4 - Probably HCC
5 - Definitely HCC (concordant with OPTN 5)
A previous SINQ, 20010094, indicates that we cannot use BI-RADS categories for breast cancer diagnosis, but those BI-RADS definitions are slightly different. Most often there will be a subsequent clinical statement of HCC, so the question is also in reference to Diagnosis Date. Can we use the date of the scan's impression, which states LI-RADS category 4 or 5, as the Diagnosis Date?
Report cases with an LI-RADS category LR-5 or LR-5V based on the 2014 American College of Radiology definitions, http://nrdr.acr.org/lirads/
Do not report cases based only on an LI-RADS category of LR-4.
Use the date of the LR-5 or LR-5V scan as the date of diagnosis when it is the earliest confirmation of the malignancy.
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.
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.
Grade--Head & Neck: How should grade be coded for a tonsillar primary (or other solid tumor) with resection pathology final diagnosis of poorly differentiated SCC with histologic grade: G2-3 of 3. See discussion.
We are seeing multiple head and neck cases with unclear or multiple grade assignments. Another example is alveolar mucosa SCC with histologic grade stated as: Moderately differentiated (G2 of 3). Grade Coding for Solid Tumor instruction 5.b. is not clear regarding this situation. Does a statement of differentiation take priority? Should we disregard the differentiation statement and code using the 3-grade systems?
Use the three-grade system table in instruction #7.b to code grade for the situations you describe. Use the Grade Coding Instructions in order. Instruction #7.b (three-grade system) comes before instruction #8 (terminology).
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home