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: 07/27/2025 17:14 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20140069

MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney, renal pelvis: How would you code this histology: Renal cell carcinoma, clear and eosinophilic cell type?

Kidney rule H5 applies, code the more specific histology which is clear cell renal cell carcinoma (8310/3). Per the WHO Tumors of the Urinary System, clear cell renal cell carcinoma contains both clear and eosinophilic cytoplasm. Eosinophilic is not a type or variant of renal cell carcinoma.

2014
20140035

Reportability/MP/H Rules/Histology: Is this kidney tumor diagnosis reportable? If so, what is the correct histology? See discussion.

Left radical nephrectomy: Tumor histologic type: Renal angiomyoadenomatous tumor (see Note). Note: The a clear cell papillary renal cell tumor and a renal angiomyoadenomatous tumor (""RAT"") (reval cell carcinoma with angioleiomyoma-like stroma). Although some authors consider RAT tumors to represent a pattern of clear cell papillary RCC we believe that this represents a dstinct entity. The combined findings ...confirm the diagnosis of renal angiomyoadenomatous (RAT) tumor. These tumors are also known as renal cell carcinoma within angioleiomyoma-like stroma. To date none of these tumors have developed metastases. Given the small number of reported cases we would consider these to have at worst a low malignant potential.

According to our expert pathologist adviser, renal angiomyoadenomatous tumor ("RAT") is not reportable. He states "l would be reluctant to consider the entity malignant. The authors of the papers describing it do not seem ready to call it malignant either. I agree with calling it LMP, or in this case uncertain malignant potential."

2014
20140084

Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the 1995 diagnosis be changed to plasmacytoma? A 1995 case on the central registry database indicates that MRI and bone surveys revealed a pubic ramus lesion that was biopsied. There are no other bone lesions. A bone marrow biopsy was negative. The pathologist's diagnosis at that time was "Plasma Cell Myeloma". In 2013 there was a positive bone marrow biopsy and a diagnosis of Plasma Cell Myeloma. In 2013, a history of "sequential plasmacytomas since 1995" was mentioned. Since the 1995 diagnosis was only a solitary bone lesion with no marrow involvement, it certainly seems to fit a diagnosis of plasmacytoma better than myeloma.

Do not change the 1995 diagnosis in this case. It is best to code the histology according to information from the time of the diagnosis. Using information obtained many years later is less reliable.

2014
20140022

MP/H Rules/Kidney, renal pelvis--How many primaries are there for this case? Should we stop at rule M8 making this all one primary (C689) even though there were right and left renal pelvis tumors? Rule M3, which contains laterality, does not apply because there is also a bladder tumor. See discussion.

Kidney: originally diagnosed 12/21/2011 with right renal pelvis high grade papillary urothelial cancer. Status post right nephrectomy. Then on 01/10/2013 diagnosed with low grade papillary urothelial cancer of the bladder. 01/21/2013 diagnosed with left renal pelvis urothelial carcinoma iIn situ. Path report stated this may represent a hgh grade papillary urothelial cancer – unable to confirm due to specimen size. On 01/24/2013 left periaortic lymph node biopsy revealed poorly differentiated carcinoma consistent with prior diagnosed right renal pelvis high grade urothelial cancer. Neither the bladder nor the left renal pelvis tumor was compared to the previous right renal pelvis tumor. Also has bone mets.

Abstract this case as a single primary.

First, apply the MP/H rules to compare the 2013 bladder tumor to the 2011 renal pelvis tumor. Rule M8 applies, this is a single primary. Next, apply the MP/H rules to compare the 2013 in situ renal pelvis tumor to the 2011 renal pelvis tumor. Rule M8 applies, this is a single primary. As you correctly pointed out, Rule M3 for bilateral renal pelvis tumors, does not apply because there is also a bladder tumor in this case.

2014
20140003 Surgery of Primary Site/Surgical Procedure of Other Sites--Endometrium: How are these fields coded for an endometrial primary when the patient undergoes a radical tumor cytoreduction including modified radical hysterectomy, BSO, omentectomy, resection of intra-abdominal and intrapelvic implants, and partial cystectomy? See discussion.

When other regional sites (besides the omentum) are removed with the primary site, how is Surgical Procedure of Other Site coded? There is no cytoreduction surgery code for endometrial primaries, and this patient does not appear to qualify for any of the specific pelvic exenteration codes.

Per SINQ 20091118, an omentectomy is not coded in the Surgical Procedure of Other Site field when it is performed with a hysterectomy.

 In general, record surgery of sites/organs not covered in the surgery of primary site codes under surgery of other site. For this case, code the partial cystectomy under surgery of other site. As you point out, the omentectomy is not recorded under surgery of other site when performed with a hysterectomy for an endometrial primary. 2014
20140004 Grade--Liver: How should grade be coded for a liver lesion treated with radio frequency ablation (RFA) followed by a transplant showing moderately differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma? See discussion. The SEER Manual emphasizes the importance of coding grade only prior to neoadjuvant treatment as systemic treatment and radiation can alter a tumor's grade. This patient did not have neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiation, but did undergo a prior surgical procedure (RFA) in an attempt to destroy tumor tissue. The subsequent transplant showed residual moderately differentiated HCC. For this case, record the grade specified even though it is after RFA. RFA is not systemic or radiation treatment and should not alter the grade. 2014
20140086

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Colon: Does rule M7 apply here (A frank malignant or in situ adenocarcinoma and an in situ or malignant tumor in a polyp are a single primary)? Can the frank malignant adenocarcinoma be any specific type of adenocarcinoma for this rule to apply?

A patient has 2 synchronous tumors in the ascending colon. The first is grade 3 adenocarcinoma with signet ring differentiation and focal mucinous features (8255/3). The second is grade 2-3 adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma (8263/3).

M7 applies to this case. The frank adenocarcinoma can be a specific type of adenocarcinoma.

2014
20140033

Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Prostate: Can you clarify why a prostate biopsy diagnosis of “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” is not reportable while a biopsy diagnosis of “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable? See discussion.

SINQ 20091103 states that prostate biopsies showing “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” are NOT reportable. However, SINQ 20071056 states that “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable. This appears to be an issue of semantics with no clearly outlined method to determine reportability of such cases.

We have two recent cases with similar semantic issues and want to know whether they are reportable.

1) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation, highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma, with quality/quantity insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer.”

2) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma but due to the small size of focus, findings are not definitively diagnostic.”

Both case examples provided are reportable using instructions for ambiguous terminology. The diagnoses are qualified by the words "highly suspicious" because neither diagnosis is definitive ("insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer" and "not definitively diagnostic."). However, we follow our instructions for interpreting ambiguous terminology and report these cases.

SINQ 20091103 differs slightly. The final diagnosis in 20091103 declares unequivocally "not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma." That phrase in the final diagnosis negates the ambiguous terminology. The situation in 20071056 is similar to the two examples above - the ambiguous terminology instructions apply.

2014
20140008 Primary site: If text supports a pancreatobiliary primary with no other information what primary site code would be assigned? C249 biliary tract NOS, or C269 GI tract nos, or C809 unknown? Assign C269 in the absence of any additional information. 2014
20140080

Behavior--Breast: Is behavior for encapsulated papillary carcinoma (EPC) of the breast coded as noninvasive or invasive?

The pathologist has the final say on behavior. Code behavior based on the pathologist's final diagnosis. See Rule F in ICD-O-3.

According the WHO Classification of Breast Tumors, encapsulated papillary carcinoma of the breast is in situ, /2. Encapsulated papillary carcinoma with invasion is assigned /3. WHO describes "frank invasive carcinoma" for this histology as "neoplastic epithelial elements infiltrate beyond the fibrous capsule of encapsulated papillary carcinomas." WHO cautions that true infiltration should be "differentiated from entrapment of neoplastic epithelial cells in the fibrous capsule and from epithelial displacement into the biopsy site, which is frequently encountered following needle-core procedures of papillary lesions."

2014