Reportability/Behavior: Is myxoinflammatory fibroblastic sarcoma (MIFS) reportable for 2018? This histology is on the 2018 ICD-O-3 histology update list with a behavior code of /1. See discussion.
This will be a tough one for registrars to recognize as non-reportable since the terminology contains sarcoma, so we just want to double check.
Myxoinflammatory fibroblastic sarcoma (MIFS) (C49._), 8811/1, is not reportable for 2018 based on the 2018 ICD-O-3 New Codes, Behaviors, and Terms list. This is a new histology/behavior not previously listed in ICD-O-3. According to the WHO 4th Ed Tumors of Soft Tissue & Bone, this histology has been given a benign (/1) behavior; however, if the pathologist and/or physician state the tumor is malignant or metastatic, report the case and assign behavior code /3.
Primary site--Colon: What is the correct topography code for appendiceal orifice? See Discussion.
From a number of definitions reviewed, it seems unclear if it's part of the appendix or the cecum of the colon. For example: The cecum is usually located in the right iliac fossa. In the pole of the cecum, there is often the appearance of fusion of the three teniae coli around the appendix, giving rise to the tri-radiate fold (Mercedes Benz sign), but the anatomy can be variable. The most reliable landmarks of the cecum are the appendiceal orifice and ileocecal valve. The appendiceal orifice is usually an unimpressive slit, often crescentic in shape. The ileocecal valve is made up of the superior and inferior lips (usually not seen en face) and is the gateway leading into the terminal ileum. It is located on the prominent ileocecal fold encircling the cecum, between 3 and 5 cm distal to the cecal pole. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212097113701730)
Assign C180, Cecum, when the neoplasm originates in the appendiceal orifice. The appendiceal orifice is a landmark in the cecum. During colonoscopy, visualization of the appendiceal orifice indicates that the entire colon was examined, from the anus to the cecum.
Solid Tumor Rules (2018)--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned when a prophylactic mastectomy reveals a final diagnosis of invasive tubular carcinoma, but the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Protocol includes ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) sized separately and it is not clear if these are different tumors? See Discussion.
The patient was incidentally diagnosed with cancer on a prophylactic mastectomy, so there are no positive imaging findings to correlate the number of tumors/masses. The final diagnosis was invasive tubular carcinoma, and referred to the CAP Protocol. The CAP notes: However, it does not specify whether the single contiguous focus also includes the in situ component. The CAP goes on to note DCIS was present: The gross description does not provide any indication of either a single or multiple tumors/masses/lesions, though it was referred to as "Lesion 1" in the gross description with no indication of other lesions.
The format of the CAP Protocol frequently does not specify whether the DCIS is a separate measured tumor, or if it is a component of the invasive tumor. This makes it difficult to determine whether the DCIS should be a separate primary when the invasive tumor is not also a type of ductal carcinoma. Per both the 2007 MP/H and 2018 Solid Tumor Rules, an invasive tubular carcinoma and a ductal carcinoma in situ would be multiple primaries if they were multiple tumors. Should we default to Rule M1: Abstract a single primary when it is not possible to determine if there is a single or multiple tumors? Or should we assume these are separate tumors because they were both sized, the focality only described a single invasive tumor, and the tumors are not both ductal carcinomas?
Accession a single primary using Solid Tumor Rule M3. Based on the information provided, this was described as "Lesion 1' with no other lesions noted in the gross description. If the DCIS was a separate tumor, this would have been noted by the pathologist.
Reminder, the breast CAP protocol is a checklist for pathologists to note their findings while reviewing the slides and/or specimen. The findings and notes should be consolidated into a final/synoptic report.
First Course of Treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Melanoma: How do you code UVB therapy treatment for melanoma?
Code UVB therapy for melanoma as photodynamic therapy under Surgery of Primary Site for skin. Assign code 11 [Photodynamic therapy (PDT)] if there is no pathology specimen. Assign code 21 [Photodynamic therapy (PDT)] if there is a pathology specimen. Use text fields to document details.
First Course of Treatment/Other Therapy: Where do you code Optune TTF therapy? What needs to be included in the text portion to document this treatment?
If OPTUNE was administered for recurrence, be sure NOT to record it in the first course of treatment fields. Check with CoC if you have questions about coding treatment for recurrence.
Reportability--Corpus uteri: Is smooth muscle tumor with uncertain malignant potential (STUMP) reportable? See Discussion.
Spindled cell lesion of smooth muscle origin (desmin and SMA are positive, CD34, S100, pancytokeratin, Pax8, MDM2 and CDK4 are negative). Many of the cells have hyperchromatic, bizarre-shaped nuclei. Mitotic activity is inconspicuous. There are no areas of necrosis. The overall findings in this biopsy is best classified as a "STUMP"; however, a leiomyosarcoma cannot be excluded.
STUMP (smooth muscle tumor of uncertain malignant potential) is not reportable. According to the WHO classification of uterine corpus tumors, the behavior code for STUMP is /1.
Reportability--Vulva: Is a biopsy showing high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (VIN II) in the vulva reportable for cases diagnosed in 2018? See Discussion.
In comparison to SINQ 20180022, this case does not mention VIN III anywhere in the final diagnosis. Is any mention of HGSIL in the final diagnosis reportable, even if it is qualified with a non-reportable term in parenthesis or CAP protocol?
Since this HSIL diagnosis is specified as VIN II, do not report it.
WHO includes both VIN II and VIN III as synonyms for HSIL of the vulva. HSIL is reportable and VIN III is reportable. VIN II is not reportable.
Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many primaries should be abstracted in this 2018 lung case? See Discussion.
CT chest findings: 1. There is a dominant 1 cm. nodule in the left mid lung. 2. In addition, there is a new rather dominant bilobed nodule in the left lung base. 3. Distant metastases are not identified. Four months later, a doctor's note says routine follow-up visit status post Cyber Knife stereotactic body radiation therapy for synchronous early stage non-small cell carcinomas of the left upper and left lower lobes, both Stage IA. He is medically inoperable. This situation is described as a second primary tumor in AJCC8 page 438. However, by the 2018 Lung Solid Tumor rules, this would be a single primary, per rule M7. Is that correct?
Abstract one primary per Rule M7. Follow the Lung Solid Tumor Rules to determine the number of primaries. The AJCC TNM manual is used for staging. Do not apply AJCC instructions to determine the number of primaries.
An official website of the United States government
Home