Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20130073 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is Rosai-Dorfman disease a neoplastic reportable disease process if it occurs in the brain? See Discussion. |
The pathology report diagnosis is: Cranium, right temporal area, resection of intradural, extra-axial mass: Severe acute and chronic inflammation, histiocytic reaction, and proliferative fibrosis. See comment. Comment: Among potential alternative considerations are an infectious process, or non-infectious inflammatory CNS lesions such as inflammatory pseudotumor, Rosai-Dorfman disease, plasma cell granuloma, idiopathic hypertrophic pachymeningitis, and inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor. The clinicians discuss this and review other chart information and conclude the patient has a clinical diagnosis of Rosai-Dorfman disease. This is a rare disorder characterized by proliferation of histiocytes. |
This case is not reportable. Rosai-Dorfman disease is not listed in the ICD-O-3. To be reportable, a neoplasm must be listed in the ICD-O-3 and originate in a reportable brain/CNS site. |
2013 |
|
|
20100028 | Primary site/Histology--Head & Neck: How are these fields coded when the final diagnosis for a skull based mass is "neuroendocrine carcinoma" and the IHC studies are incompatible with a brain/spinal cord primary (ependymoma)? See Discussion. |
The pathology report final diagnosis is, "skull base mass, biopsy: neuroendocrine carcinoma, see note. NOTE: Ancillary IHC studies reveal ...the IHC signature is incompatible with ependymoma. The constellation of findings is diagnostic of well differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma." The site/histology combination of C410 and 8246/3 is 'impossible' by SEER edits. There is no override. What is the correct primary site and histology? |
According to our subject matter expert physician, this unusual case is most likely a sino-nasal tumor (some variant of esthesioneuroblastoma [olfactory neuroblastoma]). Code to nasal cavity [C300] as indicated in ICD-O-3 by site-associated topography code attached to the morphology code for olfactory neuroblastoma [9522/3]. |
2010 |
|
|
20120024 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How many primaries are abstracted and what histology codes are used when a patient has two tumors, one reported as duct and lobular carcinoma and another reported as pleomorphic lobular and duct carcinoma? See Discussion. |
The pathology report indicated two tumors in the upper outer quadrant of the breast. One tumor has duct and lobular carcinoma and the other tumor has pleomorphic lobular and duct carcinoma. Per a web search, pleomorphic lobular carcinoma is a recently recognized subtype of lobular cancer. According to the MP/H Rules, Breast Equivalent Terms, Definitions, Tables and Illustrations, "pleomorphic carcinoma" is a specific type of duct carcinoma [8022/3]. This is not listed as a combined histology in Table 3. Should this be abstracted as a single primary per Rule M10, with the histology coded 8523/3 [infiltrating duct mixed with other types of carcinoma]? Or should this be abstracted as two primaries per Rule M12, with the histologies coded as 8022/3 [pleomorphic carcinoma] and 8522/3 [infiltrating duct and infiltrating lobular carcinoma]? |
This is a single primary with the histology coded as infiltrating duct and infiltrating lobular carcinoma [8522/3]. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the steps used to arrive at this decision are: Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a breast primary, start with the Breast Multiple Primary Rules because there are site specific rules for breast primaries. Start at Rule M4 because this patient has multiple tumors in the same breast. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the applicable Module. Abstract a single primary as tumors that are lobular [8520] and intraductal or duct are a single primary. Use the Breast Histology Coding Rules to determine the correct histology for these multiple tumors abstracted as a single primary. Start at Rule H20 as there were multiple tumors present but it is a single primary. Code the histology to 8522 [duct and lobular] when there is any combination of lobular [8520] and duct carcinoma. The Note for Rule M10 indicates Table 1 and Table 2 are used to identify specific intraductal and duct carcinomas. Referring to Table 2 (Duct 8500/3 and Specific Duct Carcinomas) note that pleomorphic carcinoma is listed as a specific type of duct carcinoma. Pleomorphic is a word that describes the cellular appearance rather than a specific histology. It is coded when that is the only description/diagnosis given (pleomorphic carcinoma/pleomorphic duct carcinoma). In this case, both duct and lobular are describing the actual histologic types. Ignore the term "pleomorphic" and code the actual histologic descriptors, ductal and lobular. We will make appropriate changes to the breast rules in the MP/H revisions so this distinction is clear. |
2012 |
|
|
20190010 | Reportability/Histology--Bladder: Is papillary urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential (PUNLMP) (8130/1) reportable when also referred to as papillary transitional cell carcinoma, grade 1, no invasion (8130/2) previously? See Discussion. |
The pathology report reads: Urinary bladder, tumor over right ureteral orifice, biopsy: Urinary bladder mucosa (urothelium) and submucosa (lamina propria), with papillary urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential (previously known as papillary transitional cell carcinoma, grade 1 of 3), no invasion identified. |
This case is not reportable. PUNLMP (8130/1) is the diagnosis stated by the pathologist for this case and PUNLMP is not reportable. The information in parentheses is informational in this case and does not change the pathologist's diagnosis. According to WHO Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs, 4th edition, there is variation of architectural and cytological features between PUNLMP and papillary urothelial carcinoma, low grade, reflecting grading changes from an older classification system. |
2019 |
|
|
20031120 | Primary site: How is this field coded for a malignant spindle cell neoplasm in a subcutaneous mass of the right knee? See Description. |
The pathology report says: Right knee tumor: A. discrete subcutaneous mass 3.5x5.2x1.4 cm malignant spindle cell neoplasm (see Comment) B. A focus of subcutaneous malignant neoplasm is identified in the superior resection margin. C.All other margins are clear. The comment mentions that the specimen has been sent to Mayo Clinic and the Mayo clinic consult says, "we still believe that the diagnosis of spindle cell carcinoma is correct. Obviously the differential diagnosis involves melanoma and sarcoma also. The results of the immunoperoxidase stains strongly support the prior diagnosis of a carcinoma." |
Code the site to C49.2 [Connective, subcutaneous and other soft tissues of lower limb and hip]. The site is a subcutaneous mass. C49 with 8032/3 will not be impossible following the next updates to the SEER edits. |
2003 |
|
|
20150033 | MP/H/Histology--Lung: Would you code a lung primary of "non-small cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation" to non-small cell carcinoma (8046/3) or carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation (8574/3)? See discussion. |
The pathology report states "Right mediastinal mass: poorly differentiated non-small cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation." This is the only histologic confirmation of this lung primary that is collected. |
Code carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation (8574/3). MP/H rule H7 applies: code the higher ICD-O-3 code. There is non-small cell lung carcinoma (8046/3) and a carcinoma, NOS with neuroendocrine differentiation present (8574/3). |
2015 |
|
|
20220037 | Histology--Brain and CNS: What is the histology code of a primary papillary epithelial tumor of the sella (PPETS)? See Discussion. |
The pathology report states this is a rare entity described in case reports and not incorporated into the WHO classification of tumors. A subsequent endocrinology note stated “papillary tumor, benign by path; tumor was not an adenoma; based on one Mayo study, the recurrence risk is low.” |
Assign code 8000/0. This is an emerging histology and not yet recognized by the World Health Organization. Document the details in text fields. It might also be useful to document this SINQ question in text. |
2022 |
|
|
20240047 | Reportability/Histology--Endometrium: Is “high grade serous intraepithelial neoplasm” of the endometrium reportable? See Discussion. |
The patient had a 2023 endometrial polypectomy and curettage with final diagnosis of “at least serous intraepithelial neoplasia arising in association with an endometrial polyp.” Diagnosis comment states, “There are multiple tissue fragments with highly atypical glandular lining consistent with a high-grade serous neoplasm. There are focal areas which are suspicious, but not conclusive, for stromal invasion.” Subsequent hysterectomy and BSO showed no residual carcinoma. According to previous SINQ 20210043, serous tubal intraepithelial neoplasm (STIN) is reportable when stated to be high grade. Does the same logic apply to a similar neoplasm in the endometrium and/or endometrial polyp? |
Report high grade serous intraepithelial neoplasm of the endometrium. |
2024 |
|
|
20100071 | Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned for a patient diagnosed in February 2010 with a plasmacytoma of the frontal skull followed by a diagnosis of smoldering myeloma by bone marrow biopsy? See Discussion. | The patient had a diagnosis of solitary plasmacytoma of the right frontal skull in 2/2010 that was totally resected (the cranial specimen final diagnosis was plasmacytoma). The patient received radiation. While undergoing radiation, the patient was seen by a medical oncologist who did a bone marrow biopsy that revealed 10-15% plasma cells, and was called smoldering myeloma. Watchful waiting was recommended. In 8/2010, the patient had multiple lytic lesions and began systemic treatment.
Per rule M15 and the Multiple primary calculator, 9731/3 [plasmacytoma] and 9732/3 [smoldering myeloma] is accessioned as two primaries. When the manual states, "Use the Hematopoietic Database to determine the primary site and histology when PH1-PH29 do not apply," does this mean to use the calculator not the database itself? By the old rules this was one primary. Did this change for cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later? Which M rule is the correct rule to apply? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
The smoldering myeloma is a second primary per Rule M10. Accession as multiple primaries because this case was originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm (plasmacytoma)phase and there was a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm (multiple myeloma) more than 21 days after chronic diagnosis. See note 1 which indicates, "This is a change from previous rules." Note that the MP rules and the MP calculator in the Heme DB agree.
When the rules tell you to go to the DB to determine the histology and primary site, you use the DB information. (Don't forget to check the Abstractor Notes). The multiple primaries calculator is used to determine the number of primaries to abstract. Always use the M rules before using the MP calculator.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx. |
2010 |
|
|
20071079 | MP/H Rules/Recurrence--Breast: Do we use a pathologists comment of "recurrent ductal carcinoma" found in the pathology report for a new specimen to determine whether the new specimen actually represents a new primary or recurrent disease? See Discussion. | The patient had a left breast cancer LIQ, ductal with DCIS. Nodes (-) diagnosed in 1998 Treatment: Lumpectomy-clear margins Refused radiation Hormone therapy: Tamoxifen
Present: June 2007 Left breast-invasive ductal ca, UOQ Pathology report comments: Recurrent ductal ca. Left axillary nodes (+) |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, apply the 2007 MP/H breast rules. Go to the multiple tumors module and begin with rule M4. Stop at rule M5: tumors diagnosed more than 5 years apart are multiple primaries. The only time you can accept a pathologist's statement of recurrence is when the statement is made based on a review of the slides from the previous diagnosis compared to the slides from the current diagnosis. |
2007 |
An official website of the United States government
