Reportability/Histology--Vulva: Is Extramammary Paget neoplasm (intraepithelial glandular neoplasm) reportable? See Discussion.
Patient had a vulvar biopsy with final diagnosis of Extramammary Paget neoplasm (intraepithelial glandular neoplasm). No invasion identified. We are unable to contact the pathologist or physician for clarification.
Although this terminology is not listed in the ICD-O-3, web search results refer to this as a possible synonym for Paget disease with associated VIN III, which is reportable.
According to our subject matter expert, vulvar extramammary Paget neoplasm (intraepithelial glandular neoplasm) represents an in situ malignancy and should be reported.
He states "The traditional terminology should be 'extramammary Paget disease' to describe an in situ adenocarcinoma arising from extramammary glands in vulvar mucosa. I am not so sure about "extramammary Paget NEOPLASM", which may include all three Pagetoid processes: the traditional Paget disease, the Pagetoid spreading of an anal adenocarcinoma and a Pagetoid spreading of an urothelial carcinoma from the urethra. Regardless, all these entities are considered at least in situ carcinomas."
We recommend that you review clinical records and imaging for the clinical scenarios mentioned above.
Reportability/Histology--Vulva: Is angiomyxoma (8841/1), such as aggressive angiomyxoma of vulva diagnosed in 2022, reportable?
Do not report superficial angiomyxoma (8841/0) or aggressive angiomyxoma (8841/0). WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th edition, defines deep (aggressive) angiomyoma as a benign, infiltrative, myxoid spindle cell neoplasm that occurs in deep soft tissue of the pelviperineal region.
Reportability/Histology-Gallbladder: Is high grade biliary intraepithelial neoplasia of the gallbladder reportable?
High grade biliary intraepithelial neoplasia of the gallbladder is reportable. Assign code 8148/2. It is also known as biliary intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3, or BilIN-3.
Reportability/Histology: Is a case reportable if the Final Diagnosis in a pathology report indicates a non reportable diagnosis but the Diagnosis Comment on the same report indicates a non reportable diagnosis followed by a reportable diagnosis in parenthesis? See Discussion.
08/13/2007 polypectomy final diagnosis: tubulovillous adenoma with severe epithelial atypia. Dx Comment (on same path) ...atypia including focal cribriform glandular architecture (carcinoma in situ).
This case is reportable as carcinoma in situ. The histology code is 8263/2 [adenocarcinoma in situ in a tubulovillous adenoma].
According to our pathologist consultant, a "comment" in a path report is a part of the diagnosis - it often elaborates on or clarifies the diagnosis. Placing [carcinoma in situ] in the comment, even in parentheses, indicates that is the appropriate diagnosis for our purposes.
Reportability/Histology: Is a diagnosis of non-lung neuroendocrine tumorlet reportable? See Discussion.
Patient was diagnosed March 2023 with a neuroendocrine tumorlet of the rectum measuring 0.8 mm via excisional biopsy during colonoscopy.
Prior SINQ 20160011 (stomach specific) indicates microcarcinoid and carcinoid tumors are reportable. Microcarcinoid is a designation for neuroendocrine tumors of the stomach when they are less than 0.5 cm. in size.
Is the current rectal tumor a reportable gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumor if it is less than 5 mm (i.e., is a neuroendocrine tumorlet equivalent to a microcarcinoid)?
Do not report neuroendocrine tumorlet of lung and non-lung sites. Microcarcinoid and carcinoid tumors are reportable.
Tumorlet is a tumor of neuroendocrine differentiation, defined by size < 5 mm in diameter, mitotic count < 2 mitoses/2 mm², and absence of necrosis. Microcarcinoid is a designation for neuroendocrine tumors when they are less than 0.5 cm. in size. The term "tumorlet" is used in a number of other settings, referring to small tumors (usually < 0.5 cm), and does not necessarily mean carcinoid tumor.
The term microcarcinoid tumor is not equivalent to neuroendocrine tumorlet.
Reportability/Histology: Is a focal high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL/moderate to severe dysplasia/VIN II-III) in the vulva reportable for cases diagnosed in 2018? See discussion.
Since high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HGSIL) is reportable for the vulva in 2018 (per SINQ 20130185) but VIN II-III is not reportable, we need to clarify this reporting format seen in our area.
Report when stated to be high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion of the vulva. The 2018 SEER Manual says to assign 8077/2. HGSIL is a synonym for squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III for vulva and vagina only.
Reportability/Histology: Is this reporatable? If so, what is the correct histology?
2012 duodenal nodule biopsy, pathology positive for well differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm.
Report this case as 8240/3. In this context, well differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm seems to be a synonym for neuroendocrine tumor (NET) G1 (carcinoid). According to the WHO classification, "Neuroendocrine neoplasms of the duodenum comprise NETs..."
Reportability/Histology: Would a histology reading "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix be reportable? Since the word "tumor NOS" and "neoplasm NOS" both code to 8000, I would assume they would be interchangeable but just wanted to verify.
According to SINQ 20130027 & 20140002 a "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" of the appendix IS reportable.
"Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix is reportable. According to the WHO classification of Digestive System Tumors, "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix is synonymous with NET. WHO states on page 13 "The term 'neuroendocrine neoplasm' can be used synonymously with 'neuroendocrine tumor.'"
Neuroendocrine "tumor," or NET G1, is listed in the WHO classification as one of the malignant neoplasms of the appendix.
Reportability/Histology: Does Cancer Pathology Coding Histology And Registration Terminology (Cancer PathCHART) determine if the histology is reportable or do we have to use the Excel ICD-O-3.2 spreadsheet?
The CPC ICD-O-3 Site Morphology Validation Lists (SMVLs) designate all tumor site-morphology combinations that are either valid or impossible as determined for the sites reviewed by the Cancer PathCHART initiative. These lists provide information on the Validity Status of specific tumor site and morphology combinations, similar to the way the ICD-O-3 SEER Site/Histology Validation List used to. However, the CPC SMVLs do not include information on the reportability of specific tumor site and morphology combinations. For tumor reportability, you will continue to use the Excel ICD-O-3.2 spreadsheets posted to the NAACCR ICD-O-3 Coding Updates website: https://www.naaccr.org/icdo3/, and the most recent SEER Manual and federal, state, local, and other standard setters' reportability requirements.
An official website of the United States government
Home