Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20140051 | 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..." |
2014 | |
|
|
20140022 | MP/H Rules/Kidney, renal pelvis--How many primaries are there for this case? Should we stop at rule M8 making this all one primary (C689) even though there were right and left renal pelvis tumors? Rule M3, which contains laterality, does not apply because there is also a bladder tumor. See discussion. |
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. |
Abstract this case as a single primary.
First, apply the MP/H rules to compare the 2013 bladder tumor to the 2011 renal pelvis tumor. Rule M8 applies, this is a single primary. Next, apply the MP/H rules to compare the 2013 in situ renal pelvis tumor to the 2011 renal pelvis tumor. Rule M8 applies, this is a single primary. As you correctly pointed out, Rule M3 for bilateral renal pelvis tumors, does not apply because there is also a bladder tumor in this case. |
2014 |
|
|
20140087 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Ampulla of vater: Is this a new primary? Patient has intramucosal adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma of the ampula of vater in Sept. of 2011. In May of 2012, patient has another ampullary adenoma with intraepithelial carcinoma (pTis) and an area suspicious for invasion. This is coded 8263/3.
Rule M14, Multiple in situ and/or malignant polyps are a single primary, precedes rule M15, An invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days after diagnosis is a multiple primary, per the MP rules for 'Other sites', |
Rule M14 applies. Abstract this case as a single primary. |
2014 | |
|
|
20140035 | Reportability/MP/H Rules/Histology: Is this kidney tumor diagnosis reportable? If so, what is the correct histology? See discussion. |
Left radical nephrectomy: Tumor histologic type: Renal angiomyoadenomatous tumor (see Note). Note: The a clear cell papillary renal cell tumor and a renal angiomyoadenomatous tumor (""RAT"") (reval cell carcinoma with angioleiomyoma-like stroma). Although some authors consider RAT tumors to represent a pattern of clear cell papillary RCC we believe that this represents a dstinct entity. The combined findings ...confirm the diagnosis of renal angiomyoadenomatous (RAT) tumor. These tumors are also known as renal cell carcinoma within angioleiomyoma-like stroma. To date none of these tumors have developed metastases. Given the small number of reported cases we would consider these to have at worst a low malignant potential. |
According to our expert pathologist adviser, renal angiomyoadenomatous tumor ("RAT") is not reportable. He states "l would be reluctant to consider the entity malignant. The authors of the papers describing it do not seem ready to call it malignant either. I agree with calling it LMP, or in this case uncertain malignant potential." |
2014 |
|
|
20140060 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the correct histology code for this lung tumor? FINAL PATHOLOGIC DIAGNOSIS: CT-guided Rotex and Franseen needle biopsies: Positive for malignancy, consistent with adenocarcinoma. Comment: the adenocarcinoma present also shows rare CD56 staining which indicates a neuroendocrine component.
Is this a mixed histology? 8045/3? 8244/3? |
Assign histology code 8140/3, adenocarcinoma, based on the final diagnosis. The neuroendocrine component in this case is not another histology, nor is it a more specific adenocarcinoma. "Component" is not one of the words that we use to indicate a more specific histology. |
2014 | |
|
|
20140026 | Histology: Are all well differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (carcinoid) tumors coded to 8240 or 8246? When do you use code 8246? |
Code 8246 is correct when the mass/lesion is referred to as neuroendocrine "carcinoma" or NEC. Use code 8240 when the mass/lesion is referred to as a neuroendocrine "tumor" or NET G1. The difference is the word tumor versus carcinoma. Carcinoid is most often used interchangeably with neuroendocrine tumor and not with neuroendocrine carcinoma. |
2014 | |
|
|
20140072 | Reportability--Head & Neck: Would this be reportable and if so what histology would be coded? Soft tissue mass left cheek excision reveals Carcinoma Ex Pleomorphic Adenoma Non-Invasive with focal vascular invasion. Margins clear. |
Carcinoma ex pleomorphic adenoma (Ca-ex-PA) is reportable. Assign 8941/3. The WHO classification of head and neck tumors defines Ca-ex-PA as an epithelial malignancy arising in a benign pleomorphic adenoma. Most of these originate in the parotid gland but can also arise in other salivary glands. |
2014 | |
|
|
20140077 | MP/H Rules/Histology/Multiple primaries--GE junction: How is histology coded for a goblet cell carcinoma in the GE junction? See discussion. |
The patient was diagnosed with GE junction signet ring adenocarcinoma (8490/3) in 5/2012, treated with radiation. GE junction biopsy on 9/20/2012 showed residual signet ring carcinoma. Subsequent biopsies on 7/8/2013 showed GE junction biopsy of invasive adenocarcinoma, signet ring cell type along with “Esophagus, distal and GE junction biopsies” (site not further clarified in available documentation) with Goblet cell carcinoma. The histology code for the goblet cell carcinoma is needed to determine the number of primaries. |
According to our expert pathologist consultant, goblet cell is a descriptive term and not a specific histology in this context. There is no ICD-O-3 code for it. The "goblet cell carcinoma" in this case is not a new primary.
Goblet cell is used to describe some cells containing mucin. In addition to individual tumor cells containing mucin which compresses the nucleus to give the appearance of signet rings, the mucin is present in columnar cells with the nuclei at one end -- this latter is a pattern often seen when glandular structures are formed by the tumor cells. It is also often intermixed with the signet ring cells in the surrounding stroma. |
2014 |
|
|
20140033 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Prostate: Can you clarify why a prostate biopsy diagnosis of “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” is not reportable while a biopsy diagnosis of “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable? See discussion. |
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.” |
Both case examples provided are reportable using instructions for ambiguous terminology. The diagnoses are qualified by the words "highly suspicious" because neither diagnosis is definitive ("insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer" and "not definitively diagnostic."). However, we follow our instructions for interpreting ambiguous terminology and report these cases.
SINQ 20091103 differs slightly. The final diagnosis in 20091103 declares unequivocally "not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma." That phrase in the final diagnosis negates the ambiguous terminology. The situation in 20071056 is similar to the two examples above - the ambiguous terminology instructions apply. |
2014 |
|
|
20140019 | Reportability--Breast: Is this reportable as 8520/2? Final Diagnosis: Atypical Lobular Hyperplasia (ALH/LCIS). We are seeing this diagnosis quite often. |
ALH/LCIS is reportable. LCIS (lobular carcinoma in situ) is a reportable neoplasm. When LCIS is stated as the final diagnosis, report the case. | 2014 |
An official website of the United States government
