Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20110126 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be accessioned, and what rule applies, when the patient has a history of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma diagnosed in 2003, a follicular lymphoma diagnosed in 2009, and another diagnosis of follicular lymphoma in 2010? Is the application of the multiple primary rules effected if it is unknown whether the patient was ever disease free? See Discussion. | Patient has a history of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma involving multiple lymph node regions (site C778) with bone marrow involvement diagnosed in 2003 and a history of follicular lymphoma confined to the thyroid and neck lymph nodes diagnosed in 2009. In 2010 the patient was diagnosed with follicular lymphoma in the inguinal and abdominal lymph nodes.
The 2003 diagnosis of DLBCL and the 2009 diagnosis of follicular lymphoma are the same primary according to the 2009 rules, the Single Versus Subsequent Primaries Table.
What rule is used to determine whether the 2010 diagnosis of follicular lymphoma represents a new primary? Which histologies are compared using the rules: the 2010 follicular lymphoma diagnosis to the 2009 follicular diagnosis or the 2010 follicular lymphoma diagnosis to the 2003 DLBCL diagnosis? |
This case should be accessioned as one primary.
Reportability is determined by the year of diagnosis. The original DLBCL was diagnosed in 2003 and the follicular lymphoma in 2009. The pre-2010 rules are used for both cases. Per the Single Versus Subsequent Primaries Table, these are the same primary. It is reported with the histology 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma]
Do not compare the DLBCL diagnosed in 2003 and the follicular lymphoma diagnosed in 2010 because the determination of the number of primaries for the two specific histologic types was done (as it should have been) using the rules in effect in 2009 when the follicular lymphoma was first diagnosed. The determination of a single or multiple primaries is made the first time the patient presents with the two different diseases; it is not changed when the same disease process reappears after 2010. |
2011 |
|
|
20120057 | Reportability--Appendix: Is a low grade mucinous neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential with an in situ mucinous cystadenoma component reportable? See Discussion. | The patient was diagnosed with pseudomyxoma peritonei and the pathology report final diagnosis stated, "Low grade mucinous neoplasm, of uncertain malignant potential, involving a dilated appendix (5cm) with the following features: In situ mucinous cystadenoma component is identified, with low-grade cytology of neoplastic epithelium." Does the presence of an in situ component make this mucinous cystadenoma of the appendix reportable based on the ICD-O-3 matrix rule? | This diagnosis is not reportable. Cystadenoma is not reportable. The "in situ" description in this case does not make cystadenoma reportable.
According to our expert pathologist consultant, this is a "non-invasive, low grade, epithelial proliferation in an often cystic appendiceal tumor, 8480/1. If this has leaked or ruptured it can seed the peritoneal cavity causing pseudomyxoma peritonei." |
2012 |
|
|
20110005 | Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the pre-2010 histology coded for a "follicular grade 2, non-Hodgkin lymphoma with marginal zone B-cell differentiation"? See Discussion. | This patient was seen in 2010 for the same primary as diagnosed in 2006. The histology was coded to marginal zone lymphoma [9699/3] in 2006. Is this correct? Or should this have been coded as a follicular lymphoma, ignoring the modifying expression "marginal zone B-cell differentiation"? | This is a 2006 diagnosis. The histology code is 9691/3 [follicular lymphoma, grade 2]. Do not code differentiation for hematopoietic cases.
For diagnoses 2010 and forward, a small number of cases of follicular lymphoma do have marginal zone differentiation. However, there is no code for this variant of follicular lymphoma. It would simply be coded as a follicular lymphoma because that is the most accurate histology code available. The marginal zone differentiation is not to be coded as a second primary (marginal zone lymphoma). |
2011 |
|
|
20210017 | Update to current manual/Mets at diagnosis fields--Lymphoma: Are distant metastases possible for a lymphoma with a primary site of lymph nodes? The instructions in the SEER manual tell us to assign code 8 in each of the Mets at Dx fields for a lymphoma originating in lymph nodes. |
This is a correction to the SEER manual. Lymphomas originating in lymph nodes (C77) could have distant metastases to any site except lymph nodes. The following corrections to the manual apply now and will appear in the next version of the manual. Remove C770-C779 from the instruction for assigning code 8 on the following pages. Page 135 Mets at Dx--Bone Page 137 Mets at Dx--Brain Page 139 Mets at Dx--Liver Page 141 Mets at Dx--Lung Page 145 Mets at Dx--Other Example Biopsy of axillary lymph node: Diffuse Large B-Cell lymphoma. Lymph nodes involved above and below the diaphragm, multiple nodules seen in lung, lesions in liver. Bone marrow biopsy positive for DLBLC. Per Hematopoietic manual, primary site would be C778 for multiple lymph node regions involved. Mets at Dx--Bone-0 Mets at Dx--Brain-0 Mets at Dx--Liver-1 Mets at Dx--Lung-1 Mets at Dx--Distant Lymph Nodes-8 Mets at Dx--Other-1 |
2021 | |
|
|
20110004 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Which MP/H rule applies when coding the histology field for a tumor described as a "metaplastic carcinoma, adenosquamous and spindle cell type"? See Discussion. | Per path comment: "The neoplasm is composed of adenosquamous carcinoma which merges with spindle cell carcinoma. The cystic component shows a mixed squamous and ductal epithelial lining which shows cytologic atypia and mitotic activity and can be seen to merge with invasive carcinoma. The features suggest the possibility that the tumor may have arisen from a sclerosing and cystic papilloma with squamous metaplasia, although a clearly benign component is not evident."
Would MP/H rule H19 apply based on the pathology report comment resulting in histology for the case being coded to 8255 [adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes]? Or, would MP/H rule H14 apply based on the final diagnosis resulting in histology for the case being coded to 8575 [metaplastic carcinoma] because adenosquamous and spindle cell are not specific types of metaplastic carcinoma? |
This is a metaplastic carcinoma as stated in the path diagnosis. Rule H14 applies. Assign code 8575/3. According to the WHO Classification, metaplastic carcinoma is a general term for a group of neoplasms characterized by a mixture of adenocarcinoma with dominant areas of spindle cell, squamous, and/or mesenchymal differentiation.
Use the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual for cases diagnosed 2007 or later to determine the histology for this case. Code histology to 8575/3 [metaplastic carcinoma] as stated in the pathology diagnosis.
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Breast Histo rules determine histology for the case.
Go to the SINGLE TUMOR: INVASIVE CARCINOMA ONLY module. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module from Rule H10 to Rule H19. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.
Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. According to the WHO Classification, metaplastic carcinoma is a general term for a group of neoplasms characterized by a mixture of adenocarcinoma with dominant areas of spindle cell, squamous, and/or mesenchymal differentiation. |
2011 |
|
|
20120017 | Reportability: Is a low-grade neuroendocrine neoplasm with gastrin expression found in a periportal lymph node reportable if the clinical impression is compatible with a gastrinoma? See Discussion. |
SINQ 20110095 states that "low-grade neuroendocrine neoplasm/carcinoid tumor with expression of gastrin" is reportable. However, in this case "carcinoid tumor" is not mentioned. Is this case reportable if the expression "carcinoid tumor" is missing in the diagnosis of the pathology report? Also, does the fact that the gastrinoma was found in a lymph node affect reportability? |
This is a reportable case. Code the histology as malignant gastrinoma [8153/3]. Gastrinomas are usually malignant. This one is apparently present in a metastatic site (periportal lymph node) which confirms the malignancy. |
2012 |
|
|
20110042 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: How is histology coded when the initial biopsies of retroperitoneal mass demonstrated non-seminomatous germ cell tumor, but after neoadjuvant chemotherapy the final diagnosis on the radical orchiectomy specimen demonstrated mature teratoma, NOS (not stated to be malignant)? See Discussion. | A large retroperitoneal mass was found on CT scan. A biopsy demonstrated non-seminomatous germ cell tumor. The biopsy was done at an outside facility. Neither the CT scan nor biopsy pathology report is available for review. Following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the retroperitoneal mass decreased to 12 cm. Subsequently, the patient had a right radical orchiectomy. The final diagnosis per the pathology reports was a 3.5 cm mature teratoma (NOS, not stated to be "malignant") of right testicle. The patient then had resection of the retroperitoneal mass and biopsies. Pathology showed the "excision" specimen contained 6 benign lymph nodes and two of the "biopsy" specimens showed non-seminomatous germ cell neoplasm with IHC findings suggestive of a mix of embryonal carcinoma and a lesser component of yolk sac tumor. | This is a reportable case. Even though the pathology from the orchiectomy stated mature teratoma, NOS, the presence of lymph node metastases proves that this tumor is malignant. Code the histology as 9065/3 [germ cell tumor non-seminomatous].
The majority of germ cell tumors show the presence of multiple histologies. While the original tumor showed only mature teratoma, there were obviously yolk sac cells that were not detected on the sections taken from the primary tumor. Both teratoma and yolk sac are germ cell tumors. This explains why the pathologist gave you the diagnosis of germ cell tumor. The classification of "non-seminomatous" simply means that there was no seminomas present in the mixture of germ cell histologies. |
2011 |
|
|
20230058 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be accessioned for a patient with known history of right breast carcinoma in 2018 followed by 2022 biopsy proven right and left breast invasive ductal carcinoma if the physician states this is a right breast primary with widespread metastasis including the left breast? See Discussion. |
The patient was initially diagnosed with invasive mammary carcinoma of the right breast in 2018, treated with lumpectomy, sentinel node biopsy, radiation, and hormones. Hormones were discontinued early due to dysfunctional uterine bleeding. |
This is a single primary according to the Solid Tumor Rules.
|
2023 |
|
|
20120025 | MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are abstracted if a patient was diagnosed with metastatic malignant melanoma to the brain in 2003 and subsequently was diagnosed with meningeal melanomatosis? See Discussion. | Meningeal melanomatosis has a separate ICD-O-3 code, but is also a very rare form of melanoma. | This is a single primary coded to the site of the original melanoma. The brain and meninges are both metastatic sites. The MP/H Rules do not apply to metastases.
This case was sent to the melanoma physician specialists. The physician stated that, in this case, the meningeal involvement is secondary to the brain involvement (metastatic spread). Whenever brain metastases are diagnosed, the meningeal spread is metastatic. |
2012 |
|
|
20180093 | 2018 Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: What is the histology and number of primaries for a lung case diagnosed in 2018 with adenocarcinoma with acinar predominant pattern on biopsy, and subsequent lobectomy showing adenocarcinoma with solid growth pattern and separate adenocarcinoma with lepidic predominant pattern? Should this be coded as one primary with an adenocarcinoma, NOS (8140/3) histology since we cannot use pattern or predominant, based on the histologic type listed in the synoptic report, and the fact it states synchronous primary tumors in the same lobe. See Discussion. |
02/18 RUL biopsy: Moderatley differentiated adenocacarcinoma with acinar predominant pattern 04/18 RUL lobectomy: 6.5cm poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma with solid growth pattern and 1.1 cm separate adenocarcinoma with lepidic predominant pattern Synoptic report: Procedure: Lobectomy Specimen Laterality: Right Tumor Tumor Site: Upper lobe Histologic Type: Invasive adenocarcinoma, solid predominant Tumor Size: 6.5 Centimeters (cm) Tumor Focality: Synchronous primary tumors in same lobe Lymph Nodes Number of Lymph Nodes Involved: 0 Number of Lymph Nodes Examined: 12 Nodal Stations Examined: 4R: Lower paratracheal; 8R: Para-esophageal (below carina); 10R: Hilar; 7: Subcarinal Pathologic Stage Classification (pTNM, AJCC 8th Edition) Primary Tumor (pT): pT3 Regional Lymph Nodes (pN): pN0 |
This is a single primary per Lung rule M7. First determine the histology for each tumor. Both tumors are coded 8140/3 because the histologies are a PATTERN. Reference: Coding Multiple Histologies (precedes histology rules) Instruction 2 says do not code pattern . If the word pattern was not in the diagnosis, you would code the specific histology. |
2018 |
An official website of the United States government
