System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 11/09/2025 03:41 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20150001

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.

 2015
20150002

Reportability--Bladder: Please explain the reportability of UroVysion for bladder cancer in the following circumstances.

1. Patient has positive UroVysion test and follow up biopsy is negative. Is this case reportable with a diagnosis date the date of the UroVysion?

2. Patient has positive UroVysion test and follow up biopsy is positive for cancer. Is the diagnosis date of the date of the positive UroVysion or the date of the positive biopsy? Thank you.

Do not report a case based on UroVysion test results alone. Report a case when there is positive histology, a physician statement of malignancy, and/or the patient was treated for cancer.

1. Do not report the case.

2. Report the case based on the positive biopsy.

2015
20150052

Primary Site--Sarcoma: What is the best primary site code for an undifferentiated sarcoma of the pulmonary artery? See discussion.

Consolidation of the case: The operating hospital stated: SOFT TISSUE: Resection: Procedure: Radical resection Other: Pneumonectomy Tumor Site: Right pulmonary artery - They used code C383 (mediastinum NOS).  The consulting hospital stated: Lung, right, pneumonectomy: High grade sarcoma consistent with intimal sarcoma; tumor involves pulmonary artery.  They used code C449 (other soft tissue NOS).  Would C493 (soft tissue thorax) be correct?

Code the primary site to pulmonary artery, C493. According to the WHO classification of tumors, intimal sarcomas are malignant mesenchymal tumors arising in large blood vessels. They show mostly intraluminal growth with obstruction of the vessel. They may occur in the pulmonary vessels or, less often, in the aorta.

2015
20150023

MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: When is 8341/3, papillary microcarcinoma coded? The code description in ICD-O-3 is followed by (C739), yet there are two SINQ answers that tell us specifically to not use this code for thyroid primaries. Even the first revision of ICD-O-3 still carries the (C739) as part of this code, which goes against SINQ 20110027 and 20081127.

Per the WHO Tumors of Endocrine Organs, for thyroid primaries/cancer only, the term micropapillary does not refer to a specific histologic type. It means that the papillary portion of the tumor is minimal or occult (1cm or less in diameter) and was found incidentally. WHO does not recognize the code 8341 and classifies papillary microcarcinoma of the thyroid as a variant of papillary thyroid and thereby should be coded to 8260. If the primary is thyroid and the pathology states papillary microcarcinoma or micropapillary carcinoma, code 8260 is correct. This information will be included in the upcoming revisions to the MP/H manual.                        

2015
20150017

MP/H Rules/Histology--Head and Neck: What is the histology code for salivary duct carcinoma of parotid gland?

Code salivary duct carcinoma to invasive ductal carcinoma (8500/3). Salivary duct carcinoma is an aggressive adenocarcinoma which resembles high-grade breast ductal carcinoma according to the WHO Classification of Tumors of Head & Neck.

2015
20150044

Reportability--Ovary: Is micropapillary serous carcinoma (MPSC) of the ovary reportable? What are the differences between “noninvasive" and “low malignant potential?"  See discussion.

Pathology report reads left ovary: noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC), fragmented; right ovarian excrescence and posterior cul-de-sac: noninvasive implants identified; right ovary: noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC), scattered autoimplants (noninvasive); tumor is present on ovarian surface, noninvasive autoimplants

Noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC) of the ovary is reportable. Assign code 8460/2, applying the ICD-O-3 matrix concept to this noninvasive carcinoma. Noninvasive can be used as a synonym for in situ, ICD-O-3 behavior code /2. See page 66 in the softcover ICD-O-3. Low malignant potential (LMP) means that the neoplasm is not malignant, but has some chance of behaving in a malignant fashion. LMP can be used as a synonym for ICD-O-3 behavior code /1, see page 66.

2015
20150066

Grade--Breast: Do you take grade from the most representative specimen along with the histology? What is the correct histology/grade combination? See discussion.

 

Breast biopsy (from hospital A): DCIS, solid, cribriform, comedo type, high nuclear grade

Breast Lumpectomy (from hospital B): DCIS, cribriform type, nuclear grade 1, tumor 2.5cm

Assign 8201/2 for this case.

MP/H rules are to code histology based on the specimen with the most tumor tissue. That would be the lumpectomy in this case. The histology is DCIS, cribriform type.

Reference: http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/mphrules_instructions.pdf

The general rule for grade is to code the highest grade specified within the applicable grading system. For the case information provided, follow instruction #5, nuclear grade: use Coding for Solid Tumors #7: 2-, 3-, or 4- grade system. High nuclear grade (grade code 3 for breast) is higher than nuclear grade 1 (grade code 1).

Reference: http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/grade/

2015
20150057

Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is this diagnosis reportable? If this neoplasm originated in the spinal cord, it is reportable, correct?

Specimen is described as a 'spinal cord mass.' The final diagnosis is 'fragments of adipose tissue demonstrating vascular proliferations consistent with angiolipoma. No histologic evidence of malignancy.' The microscopic description says: Sections of the spinal mass reveal bone, cartilage, fibrous tissue and adipose tissue. The adipose tissue demonstrates increased vascularity with thin walled blood vessels seen with islands of delicate fibrous stroma. The histologic findings are compatible with fragments of angiolipoma.

The neoplasm is reportable if it originated in the spinal cord or is intradural (within the spinal dura; spinal nerve roots are intradural). If there is not enough information to determine the exact site of origin, do not report the case.

2015
20150049

Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is pseudotumor cerebri reportable?

Pseudotumor cerebri is not reportable. It is not a neoplasm. The pressure inside the skull is increased and the brain is affected in a way that appears to be a tumor, but it is not a tumor.

2015
20150027

Date of diagnosis--Diagnostic confirmation: How are the diagnosis date and diagnostic confirmation coded when the pathology (needle biopsy followed by resection) reports GIST, NOS and the physician subsequently states this is a malignant GIST and treats the patient for a malignancy? See Discussion.

Pathologists rarely diagnose a GIST as a malignant tumor. Per the AJCC, GISTs encompass a continuum in terms of biologic potential, with larger more mitotically active tumors landing on the "histologically sarcomatous" or malignant end of the spectrum. Because the pathologists generally do not categorize these tumors as benign or malignant, the judgement is typically made by the clinician in light of all the clinical and pathologic findings. Unless there are obvious distant metastases, the clinician usually decides whether a GIST is malignant and treats the patient as such.

In the case above, the patient underwent a gastric biopsy on 04/10/2014 that showed GIST. The subsequent resection on 04/12/2014 showed a 4.5 cm GIST, spindle cell type with 6 mitoses/5 square mm. The resection pathology report does not indicate the GIST is malignant, but does identify a large tumor with mitotic activity. After reviewing the evidence in this case, the clinician calls this a malignant GIST on 04/29/2014 and starts the patient on Gleevec.

Although neither the biopsy nor the resection call this a malignant tumor, should the date the GIST was first diagnosed (biopsy on 04/10/2014) be used to code the diagnosis date, since this is the date the tumor (ultimately felt to be malignant) was diagnosed? If the diagnosis date is coded as the date malignant GIST was first mentioned (04/29/2014), this would exclude surgery as treatment for this tumor.

Would this be a histologic diagnosis because the tumor was histologically confirmed to be GIST? Or must this be a clinical diagnosis because the diagnosis of malignancy was only made clinically (by the clinician's review of the clinical and pathologic findings)?

Code the diagnosis date for this case as 04/10/2014. Code the diagnostic confirmation as histologically confirmed. The clinician is using all of the information available to determine the diagnosis, including the biopsy and resection.

2015