Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20061029 | Recurrence (Pre-2007)--Colon: When there is no statement of recurrence on the abstract, is a colon tumor at the anastomosis site a recurrence of the previous colon cancer or a new primary? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: If the cancer at the anastamosis site is more than two months after the previous colon cancer, abstract as a separate primary. If the cancer at the anastamosis site is within two months of the original diagnosis and the histologies are the same, do not abstract as a separate primary. 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. |
2006 | |
|
|
20051131 | Recurrence/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Primary Site--Breast: Is a malignancy that occurs in 2005 in a mastectomy scar years following an original diagnosis of breast cancer in 1971 a recurrence (not reportable) or a new primary (breast or chest wall, NOS)? See Discussion. |
The patient had a right mastectomy for breast carcinoma in 1971. In 2005, she came in with a mass in the right axilla and a right chest wall mass in the mastectomy scar. Excision of the axillary mass and biopsy of the chest wall mass revealed invasive adenocarcinoma with a similar histologic pattern. The axilla specimen contained no benign breast tissue. IHC stains exhibit strongly positive for ER, mildly positive for PR and negative for HER2/neu. The pathologist says "Although these findings are consistent with recurrent breast carcinoma, they are not specific for such. Recurrence after 34 yrs. is most unusual." |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: The 2005 diagnosis is a new primary. The 1971 site differs from the 2005 site and there are more than two months between the two. Without further information, assign topography code C761 [chest wall]. The pattern of spread, including regional extension, is different for a primary of the chest wall compared to a primary in the breast. Coding the primary site to C761 will group this case with similar cases. If further information can be obtained, look for old records that describe the extent of the 1971 mastectomy. It is possible that there was breast tissue left on the chest wall. Residual breast tissue is often present following mastectomy (simple, modified, or even radical). New carcinoma can develop in the remaining breast tissue. 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. |
2005 |
|
|
20180104 | Reportability--Ambiguous terminology: Are the following terms reportable: almost certainly and until proven otherwise? See Discussion. |
Example 1: Physician states patient has an almost certain melanoma. Due to the patient's age, there is no plan to for any treatment or further workup. Almost certain is not listed as a reportable phrase, so typically we would not accession this case. Example 2: Imaging states a diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma until proven otherwise. No additional workup is available at this facility. This terminology is also not seen on the ambiguous reportable terminology list but we are seeing it more often and wanted confirmation. |
Use the ambiguous terminology list as a last resort. Consult with the physician and search for further information to assist with the decision. If no further information can be obtained, use the ambiguous terms list to decide; in this case, the terms are not on the list and these examples would not be reportable. |
2018 |
|
|
20200027 | Reportability--Ambiguous Terminology: Should either of the terms, strongly characteristic of or most certainly, be used to accession a case as reportable when they are used to describe a malignancy and no other information is available? See Discussion. |
SINQ 20130140 indicates a histologic diagnosis that is characteristic of a specified malignancy is reportable because this is equivalent to the term, diagnostic of. Does the same logic apply to a clinical diagnosis that is strongly characteristic of a malignancy on imaging? SINQ 20180104 indicates the term, almost certainly, is not a reportable ambiguous term. If a radiologist notes a mass was most certainly malignant, is this adequate to accession this as reportable? Is a clinically certain diagnosis equivalent to diagnostic of? Or are the modifiers almost and most irrelevant because the terms certainly and certain are not on the ambiguous terminology list? |
Look for more information. What is the plan for each of these patients? Consult with the physician and search for further information to assist with the decision. If no further information can be obtained, accession both of these cases based on the imaging reports. If more information becomes available later, review and revise as applicable. |
2020 |
|
|
20220005 | Reportability--Ambiguous Terminology: Can the term “at most” preceding a statement of a reportable diagnosis be used to accession a case? See Discussion. |
A January 2022 endometrium biopsy and curettage both show final diagnosis of “mild cytologic atypia and glandular crowding, at most endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia.” Any subsequent surgery path is unlikely to provide clarification. |
Do not report the case in this scenario based on the diagnosis alone of mild cytologic atypia and glandular crowding, at most endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia. "At most" is not an ambiguous term for reportability. It appears that "at most" in this case refers to the worst possible option within other possible options (differential diagnosis). Differential diagnoses are "educated guesses" or hypotheses and are usually not reportable unless proven otherwise. As there is no clear statement of the diagnosis in this case, we recommend that you seek additional information, for example, clinical diagnosis, treatment, and patient care. |
2022 |
|
|
20210048 | Reportability--Anal Canal: Is a 2021 diagnosis of moderate squamous dysplasia (AIN II) of the anal canal reportable? See Discussion. |
We are aware that squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II (e.g., AIN II), 8077/2 is reportable for 2021. However, because this is also called rather than high grade squamous dysplasia (8077/2), we are unsure about reportability. There is no known histology and behavior code for moderate squamous dysplasia, the classifications available are only low grade (8077/0) or high grade (8077/2). |
If possible, clarify with the pathologist/physician what is meant by "moderate squamous dysplasia (AIN II)." If no further information can be obtained, report this case based on the diagnosis of "AIN II." Squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II is listed in ICD-O-3.2 as 8077/2 making it reportable for cases diagnosed in 2021. AIN is a type of squamous intraepithelial neoplasia. |
2021 |
|
|
20130184 | Reportability--Appendix: Are low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms reportable? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2022 A low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) is not reportable. The WHO classification designates LAMN with the behavior code /1 [uncertain whether benign or malignant]. |
2013 | |
|
|
20160050 | Reportability--Appendix: Is a mucinous cystic neoplasm with high grade dysplasia of the appendix reportable? See discussion. |
The language appears similar to the mucinous cystic neoplasm of the pancreas with high grade dysplasia (8470/2), which was clarified to be reportable in 2014. |
WHO does not list MCN as a histology for the appendix. This case should be clarified with the pathologist.
For pancreas specifically, the term "mucinous cystic neoplasm (MCN) with high grade dysplasia" replaced the term "mucinous cystadenocarcinoma, noninvasive" according to WHO. MCN with high grade dysplasia of the pancreas is reportable because it is used in place of the now obsolete terminology. If we did not make the new terminology reportable, trends over time could be affected.
|
2016 |
|
|
20031106 | Reportability--Appendix: Is an appendiceal carcinoid with one periappendiceal lymph node positive for metastatic carcinoid tumor reportable to SEER? See Discussion. |
The patient had an appendectomy followed by a hemicolectomy. No residual carcinoid tumor was identified but there was one lymph node positive for metastatic carcinoid tumor. |
Yes, this carcinoid is reportable to SEER. This carcinoid is malignant by virture of the lymph node metastasis. Code the behavior as /3. |
2003 |
|
|
20180089 | Reportability--Appendix: Is disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis (DPAM) reportable when it is being referred to as if the primary tumor is a low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN)? See Discussion. |
Example 1: 8/23/2017 debulking path diagnosis of low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) with involvement of intrapelvic mucin, left ovarian mass, uterine serosa and pelvic tumor, consistent with disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis, that may also be called low-grade mucinous carcinoma peritonei. 8/8/2018 resection of sigmoid and rectum, path diagnosis of peri-colorectal fibroadipose issue with low-grade mucinous carcinoma compatible with the prior diagnosis of pseumomyxoma peritonei with low-grade mucinous carcinoma histology. Example 2: Path diagnosis of low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm in association with low grade mucinous carcinoma peritonei involving the serosa of the small intestine and mesentery. Also, there is involvement of serosal lined soft tissue of peritoneum, omentum, stomach, falciform ligament, gallbladder, diaphragm and spleen. Some pathologists in our area are referring to DPAM as mucinous carcinoma peritonei, which is causing confusion because the term carcinoma is being used. One would assume that because the pseudomyxoma peritonei/underlying tumor itself is low-grade (LAMN), then the case is not reportable, but we would like clarification. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2022 Disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis (DPAM) is not reportable when the primary tumor is a low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN). The term disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis (DPAM) is discouraged by the WHO Digestive System monograph (page 123, section on pseudomyxoma peritonei (mucinous carcinoma peritonei)), since it does not clarify whether the process is low grade or high grade carcinoma. When used, the term should be referring back to the histology of the defining process and in both of these examples this appears to be LAMN, and therefore not reportable. The only exception to this might be if the peritoneal implants were invasive; that is, they contained adenocarcinoma invading into the underlying peritoneum, bowel serosa, etc., rather than simply being present within the surface mucinous material. The pathologist would make this clear if this was, in fact, believed to be invasive carcinoma. |
2018 |
An official website of the United States government
