SEER Inquiry System - Search

Kidney: originally diagnosed 12/21/2011 with right renal pelvis high grade papillary urothelial cancer. Status post right nephrectomy. Then on 01/10/2013 diagnosed with low grade papillary urothelial cancer of the bladder. 01/21/2013 diagnosed with left renal pelvis urothelial carcinoma iIn situ. Path report stated this may represent a hgh grade papillary urothelial cancer – unable to confirm due to specimen size. On 01/24/2013 left periaortic lymph node biopsy revealed poorly differentiated carcinoma consistent with prior diagnosed right renal pelvis high grade urothelial cancer. Neither the bladder nor the left renal pelvis tumor was compared to the previous right renal pelvis tumor. Also has bone mets.

We are having difficulty determining whether the primary site is lip, NOS (C009) or skin of lip (C440). Usually we look for a statement of “skin” or “mucosa” in the microscopic description if the specimen label is only lip, NOS as instructed by the previous SINQ 20051049. Is a statement of "epidermis" or "dermis" in the microscopic description enough to indicate carcinoma is arising in the skin of the lip (C440) and thus not reportable?

SINQ 20091103 states that prostate biopsies showing “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” are NOT reportable. However, SINQ 20071056 states that “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable. This appears to be an issue of semantics with no clearly outlined method to determine reportability of such cases.

We have two recent cases with similar semantic issues and want to know whether they are reportable.

1) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation, highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma, with quality/quantity insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer.”

2) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma but due to the small size of focus, findings are not definitively diagnostic.”

8/1/10 CYSTOSCOPY -- MULTIPLE BLADDER TUMORS INVOLVING POSTERIOR WALL, DOME & BLADDER NECK AREA. LARGEST WOULD BE MORE THAN 5 CM IN SIZE. 8/17/10 path -- BLADDER TUMORS:PAPILLARY TRANSITIONAL CELL CARCINOMA OF urinary bladder, GRADE III. ONE FRAGMENT OF TISSUE SHOWS NECROTIC CHANGE WITH APPARENT TRANSFORMATION TO A HIGH GRADE SARCOMATOID VARIANT W ITH EXTENSIVE SUBMUCOSAL INVASION & FOCAL AREA SUGGESTIVE OF ANGIOLYMPHATIC INVASION NOTED. MAJORITY OF TUMOR APPEARS CONFINED TO MUCOSAL SURFACE W ITH NO OTHER AREAS OF DEFINITIVE SUBMUCOSAL INVASION FOUND.

Mantle cell lymphoma diagnosed in 1997 which was treated with chemotherapy. Now in 2014 a 'relapse' of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. They do a biopsy of the pericardium, which is called low grade B cell non Hodgkin lymphoma. See comment. The comment says histochemical stains are reviewed and findings are consistent with involvement by a CD5 positive low grade B cell lymphoma. Lack of cyclin D1 and SOX-11 positivity as well as negative IGH-CCND1 FISH analysis essentially rule out mantle cell lymphoma. The morphologic and immunophenotypic features of this disorder are not specific for any lymphoma subtype. The differential includes CLL, marginal zone lymphoma, and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. If this is coded NHL, NOS (9591) it is the same primary as seq. 1 and would not be abstracted.

The patient underwent a PTA biopsy of a lytic mass showing metastatic adenocarcinoma. Imaging revealed a large hepatic mass consistent with cholangiocarcinoma. The physician's impression on a physical exam note was the PTA biopsy was most consistent with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. However, the PTA pathology report was reviewed at this facility and the final diagnosis was not stated to be cholangiocarcinoma, only adenocarcinoma, NOS.

The priority order for coding histology rules in the MP/H Manual indicates pathology has priority over documentation in the medical record. Following the rules in the MP/H Manual, the histology would be coded as 8140 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS]. While this may be technically correct, it seems that intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is often diagnosed as adenocarcinoma on biopsy, but further stated to be cholangiocarcinoma by the physician once other primary sites have been excluded. By applying the rules in the MP/H Manual, cases that seem better characterized as cholangiocarcinomas are being collected as adenocarcinoma, NOS. Should the histology be adenocarcinoma [8140/3] or cholangiocarcinoma [8160/3] for these cases?