Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20210062 | Histology/Reportability--Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a case that is compatible with low grade myelodysplastic syndrome with multilineage dysplasia (MDS-MLD) reportable, and if so, is the histology plasma cell myeloma or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)? See Discussion. |
HL-7 e-path report, Final Diagnosis High normocellular marrow with maturing trilineage hematopoiesis, multilineage dyspoiesis, compatible with MDS-MLD and involvement by plasma cell neoplasm/myeloma, IgA kappa positive, approximately 20-25% of total cellularity present. See comment. Comments Correlation with other relevant laboratory (amount and type of serum and urine paraprotein levels, renal function tests, serum calcium level, and anemia) and radiologic (lytic bone lesions) findings is recommended for complete interpretation. Dyspoiesis of all lineages is seen and the findings are compatible with low grade myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS-MLD), assuming that other possible causes are excluded. Correlation with cytogenetic and molecular studies is recommended for complete characterization |
This case is reportable. Assign MDS, NOS (9989/3) based on the information provided for this case. “Compatible with” can be used for reportability; however, it cannot be used for assigning histology. There is no confirmed diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma/neoplasm; the comment specifically addresses the need for further evaluation of this case. |
2021 |
|
|
20190052 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple Primaries--Head & Neck: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient is diagnosed with right nasal cavity (C300) invasive nonkeratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (8072/3) in 2015 treated with radiation and excision, followed by a 2019 right nasal cavity (C300) invasive squamous cell carcinoma (NOS, 8070/3)? See Discussion. |
Head and Neck Multiple Primary Rule M8 appears to be the first rule that applies to this case and instructs the user to abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in the appropriate site table (Tables 1-9) in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions. Table 1 (tumors of the nasal cavity) shows Non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma on different rows making the 2019 case a new primary. Is this correct? |
Abstract two primaries using Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rule M8 when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in the appropriate site table, in this case, Table 1 Nasal Cavity and Paranasal Sinuses. |
2019 |
|
|
20200021 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: What is the histology of human papillomavirus (HPV)--associated multiphenotypic carcinoma? See Discussion. |
Histologic Type: HPV-associated multiphenotypic carcinoma. Overall, the morphology, immunohistochemistry, and HPV testing results support the diagnosis of an HPV-related multiphenotypic carcinoma. This entity has been described in the sinonasal region, where it behaves more indolently than its other salivary gland carcinoma counterparts (e.g., adenoid cystic carcinoma), with local recurrence but rare metastases. |
Assign code 8072/3 for HPV-associated multiphenotypic carcinoma. WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors, 4th edition, lists sinonasal tract HPV-related carcinoma with adenoid cystic-like features as a subtype of non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (NKSCC).Use text fields to record the details. |
2020 |
|
|
20041071 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: When the histology from a lumpectomy differs from that of a core needle biopsy, should the lumpectomy histology be coded? See Discussion. | Histology - Page 85 of the SPM 2004, Histology Type Coding Instructions, #2. Use the histology stated in the final diagnosis from the pathology report. Use the pathology from the procedure that resected the majority of the primary tumor. Based on this rule, should the following case should be coded to Ductal Carcinoma (8500/31)? Core needle bx: WD Infiltrating Ductal Carcinoma with focal lobular features. Lumpectomy: WD Invasive Ductal Carcinoma. |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Yes, code this case to 8500/31 [Well differentiated invasive ductal carcinoma]. Code the histology stated on the pathology report from the procedure removing the most tumor tissue. A lumpectomy will usually provide more tumor tissue than a core needle biopsy. First, determine which specimen contains the most TUMOR tissue -- in this case the lumpectomy. Next, apply the histology coding rules to the diagnosis on that pathology report. The rationale is that a diagnosis from a smaller specimen will be less accurate and less representative of the true histology compared to a larger tumor specimen.
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules. |
2004 |
|
|
20230010 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned when a 2020 diagnosis of invasive ductal carcinoma treated by lumpectomy is followed by a 2023 diagnosis of invasive lobular carcinoma treated by mastectomy? See Discussion. |
Historically, multiple invasive ductal and lobular carcinomas diagnosed within 5 years were abstracted as a single primary. However, it is not clear if Rule M10 or M14 applies to this situation per the 2023 Solid Tumor Rules updates. Rule M10 addresses multiple tumors of carcinoma of no special type (NST)/duct and lobular, but there is no timing criteria mentioned. Does M10 apply to cases diagnosed synchronously, or metachronously, or at least within 5 years? Should Rule M10 include a Note instructing registrars to accession a single primary for the scenario in question? If timing matters for Rule M10, then the next rule that applies is M14. Rule M14 instructs one to abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in Table 3, and carcinoma NST/duct and lobular carcinoma are on separate rows in Table 3. |
Abstract a single primary using the Breast Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M10, assuming the tumors are in the same breast. This rule is specific to multiple tumors of carcinoma NST/duct and lobular. Timing is not a factor in this rule. As stated in ‘New for 2023,’ the rules for determining single versus multiple primaries in tumors with carcinoma NST/duct and lobular carcinoma have been revised and now align with ICD-O-3.2. Tumors occurring more than five years apart are multiple primaries and would have been caught at Rule M5. Thus, rule M10 pertains to tumors occuring less than five years apart. |
2023 |
|
|
20220047 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Head and Neck: Is a patient with 2020 neck mass, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), p16-negative, who then had a biopsy of the right tonsil (C09.9) in July 2022, SCC p16-positive, one or two primaries? Is this coded to 8070/3 using pre-2022 rules or a new, second primary p16-positive, 8085/3. See Discussion. |
History provided by the oncologist Right neck mass since 2019; 04/07/20, initial biopsy p16-negative SCC, delay of treatment due to patient preference, agreed to biopsy of tonsil and work-up August 2022; right tonsil biopsy: p16-positive, G2 SCC, nodal mass at that time >6 cm with extensive extranodal extension, Stage III (cT2, cN3, cM0, p16-positive); based on this history, was staged as a tonsil primary and p16-positive. Patient details 1. March 2020, CT neck and chest revealed a 0.5 x 2.7 x 2.3 cm low-density necrotic nodal mass at right neck level 2 suspicious for metastatic disease. There was a slight asymmetric increased size of the right palatine tonsil. There are a few sub-4 mm pulmonary nodules which are nonspecific. 2. April 7, 2020, FNA of right neck mass with pathology revealed p16-negative SCC 3. April 20, 2020, PET/CT revealed 3 x 2 cm right-sided level 2 node with FDG avidity 4. May 5, 2020, flexible laryngoscopy showed no obvious primary lesion 5. May 2020, after evaluation by a medical oncology, patient declined any treatment 6. June 17, 2022, return visit in medical oncology after PET/CT demonstrates significant progression in the neck; patient definitively declines chemo, but would like surgical opinion. Now has more rapidly progressive disease with skin breakdown and weeping from malignant lesion right neck. 7. June 22, 2022, radiation oncology consultation 8. July 15, 2022, tonsil biopsy: Invasive squamous cell carcinoma, moderately differentiated with LVI, p16-positive 9. Patient now agreeing to treatment with radiation: Tooth extractions 8/30/2022, radiation planning 9/14/2022 10. Patient consulted with cancer specialist who explained surgery is not recommended given level of extranodal extension and risk of seventh cranial nerve paralysis and fistula formation with surgical excision and who recommended chemoradiation 11. September 9, 2022, patient presented for radiation CT simulation/treatment planning and informs treatment team. Patient declined/refuses concurrent chemotherapy despite recommendations from two cancer institutions. |
Abstract a single primary of the tonsil. The diagnosis date is March 2020 (the date of the CT scan). Assign 8070/3 for the histology. Metastases were found in 2020 before the primary of tonsil was determined in 2022. The oncologist information confirms this. |
2022 |
|
|
20051136 | Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: How is the surgery field coded when an excisional biopsy that is originally stated to be negative is later determined to be positive on ROS and a mastectomy with negative findings is performed 2 years later? See Discussion. | Hospital 'A' performed a breast biopsy and found only atypia. Two years later Hospital 'B' re-read the first biopsy as multifocal ductal carcinoma in situ, cribriform type. A mastectomy at Hospital 'B' followed and all specimens from this were negative. Do we report the procedure at Hospital 'A' an excisional biopsy, despite the negative findings at the time? |
For hospital A, follow the instructions in the 2004 SEER Manual on page 5, #4. For hospital B, the case is not reportable. The diagnosis date is the date of first excision. Code the breast excision from Hospital A as surgery, first course treatment. The mastectomy was not part of first course treatment. |
2005 |
|
|
20091117 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology to be coded for a breast primary described as "tubular carcinoma (well differentiated invasive ductal carcinoma)"? See Discussion. | How are terms that are modified by parentheses to be interpreted? Do terms in parentheses modify the stated diagnosis and thus have priority over the stated diagnosis? Or would rule H17 apply and histology would be coded as duct and other carcinoma? For this case, the wording of the diagnosis and use of parentheses seem to indicate that tubular is a type of ductal carcinoma. Tubular is not listed as a specific duct carcinoma in the MP/H rules histology tables for breast. |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology as tubular carcinoma [8211/3]. This is not a case of tubular AND infiltrating duct. The histology is stated to be tubular. Tubular is not a specific type of duct carcinoma. | 2009 |
|
|
20031060 | Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: Because histology 9895/3 [Acute myeloid leukemia with multilineage dysplasia] was recognized as a distinct entity by WHO with too few cases of the subtypes [with or without prior MDS] to warrant separate histology codes for each, should the wording for the non-bold definitions in ICD-O-3 be changed to the following in both the alpha and numeric sections? See Description.
AML with multilineage dysplasia and prior MDS AML with multilineage dysplasia and without prior MDS |
How do we code histology for the following case of AML? Patient was admitted for profound anemia and thrombocytopenia with no immediate explanation. Path final diagnosis on bone marrow biopsy: acute myelogenous leukemia (AML). Per micro description: findings are characteristic of AML that appears to be arising within the context of a myelodysplastic syndrome. The discharge diagnosis (2 days after bone marrow biopsy) read: myelodysplastic syndrome with profound anemia and thrombocytopenia. Do we code the histology per the final path diagnosis (code 9861/3)? Using the current version of ICD-O-3, we could arrive at a histology code of 9895/3 based on the micro findings of AML with prior myelodysplastic syndrome. However, per the above-mentioned SEER e-mail, we would not because there was no mention of multilineage dysplasia. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:To assign code 9895, it is important that the diagnosis includes "multilineage dysplasia." Use code 9895 when the diagnosis is with or without prior (not concurrent) myelodysplastic syndrome AND multilineage dysplasia. Acute myeloid leukemia without prior myelodysplastic syndrome and without multilineage dysplasia is coded 9861 [Acute myeloid leukemia, NOS]. Although the wording of 9895 cannot be changed, coders can make a note that the synonyms are intended to include: -Acute myeloid leukemia WITH multilineage dysplasia with prior myelodysplastic syndrome and -Acute myeloid leukemia WITH multilineage dysplasia without prior myelodysplastic syndrome. The histology code for the case example is 9861/3 [Acute myeloid leukemia, NOS]. For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ. |
2003 |
|
|
20190050 | Reportability/Melanoma: Is evolving melanoma reportable with a Clark's level and Breslow's thickness are cited in the pathology report? See Discussion. |
How do we interpret the reportability of the following: The histological and immunohistochemical findings are most consistent with an early-evolving malignant melanoma, superficial spreading type, with Clark's level II and maximal Breslow thickness 0.33 mm, arising in association with an atypical nevus. Since a Clark's level and Breslow's thickness are included, is this reportable? Is this really an evolving melanoma? |
As of 01/01/2021, early or evolving melanoma in situ, or any other early or evolving melanoma, is reportable. |
2019 |
An official website of the United States government
