Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20170008 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: Is the code for invasive adenocarcinoma in a serrated adenoma 8213/3? The NAACCR Guidelines for ICD-O-3 Update Implementation, effective 1/1/14, provides new terms including 8213/0 for sessile serrated adenoma/sessile serrated polyp and 8213/3 for serrated adenocarcinoma. This would cause Site/Type and Histology overrides to be set. Coding 8210/3 would allow the case to be reported without overrides. See Discussion. |
Pathology report 1/13/15, Histology - Transverse colon resection pathology = Invasive moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma. The invasive adenocarcinoma arises in a sessile serrated adenoma. |
Assign 8213/3 to invasive adenocarcinoma arising in a sessile serrated adenoma. The instruction in SINQ 20120089 is still valid. The 2014 ICD-O-3 Update does not change this SINQ answer. |
2017 |
|
|
20160043 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: Should the term "dedifferentiation" be used to code sarcomatoid transitional cell carcinoma (8122/3)? Or is this typically referring to the grade, and not the histologic subtype? See Discussion. |
Pathology report Final Diagnosis: TURBT : Urothelial carcinoma, high grade. Type/grade comment: Extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation is present (40-50% of tumor volume). |
Assign 8122/3 for urothelial carcinoma, extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation. Sarcomatoid dedifferentiation refers to the histologic type. 8122/3 is also correct for the following diagnoses.
Urothelial carcinoma, sarcomatoid carcinoma or sarcomatoid variant 8122/3 Urothelial carcinoma with sarcomatoid features 8122/3
|
2016 |
|
|
20200024 | Reportability/Histology--Fallopian tube: Is germ cell neoplasia in situ reportable? If so, is the histology and behavior 9064/2? See Discussion. |
Pathology report dated 10/17/2019: Final Diagnosis: Fallopian tubes and gonads, right and left, excision: Dysgenetic gonadal tissue with nests and tubules of atypical germ cells suspicious for gonadoblastoma and at least germ cell neoplasia in situ; and segments of fallopian tube (pending expert consultation). |
Report germ cell neoplasia in situ as 9064/2. Override the site/type edit. |
2020 |
|
|
20170070 | Primary Site/Histology--Urinary: Is a urethral lesion showing intraductal carcinoma of the prostate reportable? What is the primary site and histology code? See discussion. |
Pathology report diagnosis: Urethral lesion: Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate, see microscopic. Clinical Information: Urethral Lesion/Hematura. Microscopic Description: The biopsy shows dilated ductal structures filled with anaplastic epithelium showing areas of comedo-type necrosis. The tumor cells have enlarged nuclei prominent nucleoli and mitoses are identified. Surrounding benign prostatic tissue is also present. Immunostains show that the tumor cells stain for PSA, PSAP, P504s but are negative for GATA-3. The other components of the PIN 4 stain CK5/14 and P63 stain the basal cells surrounding the tumor confirming the intraductal nature of the process. Intraductal carcinoma should not be confused with high grade PIN as the former is usually associated with high grade invasive tumor. Is this C619 and 8500/2? |
The primary site is prostate, C619, and the histology is intraductal carcinoma, 8500/2. Further workup on this case is likely. If more information is received, review this case and update if needed. |
2017 |
|
|
20010155 | Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Melanoma: Would a shave biopsy diagnosis of "highly suggestive of early melanoma", followed by a re-excision diagnosis of "no residual disease", be SEER reportable if the clinician referred to the case clinically as a melanoma? If so, what would the Diagnostic Confirmation be? See discussion. |
Pathology report from a shave biopsy states: "...markedly atypical junctional melanocytic proliferation. Changes highly suggestive of early melanoma arising adjacent to superficial congenital nevus." The re-excision pathology report states "biopsy proven melanoma" in the "Clinical History" section of the report (which is a reference to the original shave biopsy). The re-excision final pathology diagnosis states "no evidence of melanoma." The physician states that he thinks this is a melanoma. Should it be reported? Should Diagnostic Confirmation be coded to 1 or 8? |
The case is reportable because the physician documented a clinical diagnosis of malignant melanoma. Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field to 8 [Clinical diagnosis only (other than 5, 6 or 7)]. |
2001 |
|
|
20170076 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is meningioma with atypical features coded as meningioma (9530/0) or atypical meningioma (9539/1)? See Discussion. |
Pathology report microscopic description: The tumor is a meningothelial neoplasm (EMA+; BCL-2 and CD34 negative) with prominent collagen deposition. Necrosis and prominent nucleoli are present; no other atypical features are seen. Mitoses are present, up to 2 per 10 high-powered fields. Final Diagnosis: Dura, bicoronal craniotomy (specimen A): Meningioma with atypical features. There is no rule in benign brain and CNS section of Multiple Primary/Histology (MP/H) Rules stating to code the most specific histologic term when the diagnosis is (something less specific, i.e., adenocarcinoma). This rule is in other site chapters of MP/H but appears missing in the benign brain and CNS section. |
Code as meningioma, NOS (9530/0). This lesion has some of the features of an atypical meningioma (necrosis and prominent nucleoli), but it does not fit the definition of atypical meningioma in WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System. Use text fields to document the details. |
2017 |
|
|
20150044 | Reportability--Ovary: Is micropapillary serous carcinoma (MPSC) of the ovary reportable? What are the differences between “noninvasive" and “low malignant potential?" See discussion. |
Pathology report reads left ovary: noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC), fragmented; right ovarian excrescence and posterior cul-de-sac: noninvasive implants identified; right ovary: noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC), scattered autoimplants (noninvasive); tumor is present on ovarian surface, noninvasive autoimplants |
Noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC) of the ovary is reportable. Assign code 8460/2, applying the ICD-O-3 matrix concept to this noninvasive carcinoma. Noninvasive can be used as a synonym for in situ, ICD-O-3 behavior code /2. See page 66 in the softcover ICD-O-3. Low malignant potential (LMP) means that the neoplasm is not malignant, but has some chance of behaving in a malignant fashion. LMP can be used as a synonym for ICD-O-3 behavior code /1, see page 66. |
2015 |
|
|
20041029 | Ambiguous Terminology/Reportability: Are the terms "bordering on" and "may represent" diagnostic of cancer? See Discussion. |
Pathology report states "...florid micropapillary hyperplasia, focally atypical with features bordering on low grade micropapillary ductal carcinoma in situ." |
The terms "bordering on" and "may represent" are not diagnostic of cancer. These terms are not on the list of ambiguous terms that constitute a diagnosis of cancer. The diagnosis in the example above is not reportable to SEER. |
2004 |
|
|
20031125 | Histology/Reportability/Behavior Code--Testis: Is a mature teratoma that is metastatic to lymph nodes reportable? See Description. |
Pathology report states, "Histologic sections reveal lymph node metastases, consisting predominantly of mature teratoma. In addition, there are cells scattered through the fibrous stroma which exhibit mild cytologic atypia but have low N:C ratios. The largest metastasis grossly measures 10cm. In addition extracapsular extension is identified. Diagnosis: Lymph Nodes--Metastatic Testicular Carcinoma Involving Multiple Lymph Nodes." The morphology code for mature teratoma is 9080/0. The pathologist does not classify this as an immature teratoma (9080/3). Is this reportable? |
Yes, this metastatic teratoma is reportable. This is a malignant teratoma by virtue of the lymph node metastases. Code the histology as 9080/3 [Teratoma, malignant, NOS]. Primary site is testis [C62_]. |
2003 |
|
|
20130215 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis synonymous with an EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disorder in children reportable? See Discussion. |
Pathology report states: Prominent T-cell infiltrate with frequent immunoblast-like cells. COMMENT: Findings consistent with an acute EBV-associated hemophagocytic process. In addition, there is a prominent CD8 + T-cell infiltrate with many large, activated forms. This T-cell process may represent an EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disorder in children. EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disorder in children is listed in the Heme database. However, throughout multiple admissions, the oncologist states the diagnosis as "hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis". Are the two the same condition? The patient is being treated with Etoposide. |
Per Appendix F, do not report this case based on the information provided. The oncologist likely used the pathology report and clinical factors to determine the diagnosis of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, which is not reportable. Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis is caused by an over stimulated immune system (infection, etc.). This clinical syndrome is associated with a variety of underlying conditions. To be reportable, it must state "fulminant hemophagocytic syndrome" (in a child) to be reportable (9724/3). The pathology report for this case is not definitive. It states that the process "may" represent the EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disorder in children. Follow back on this case to confirm reportability if possible. |
2013 |
An official website of the United States government
