Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20160040 | Reportability--Thyroid: Is a final diagnosis of "non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features" (NIFTP) reportable when the diagnosis comment states this tumor was historically classified as encapsulated follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma? See Discussion. |
The term "non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features" is now being used, instead of the previous classification of an encapsulated malignant thyroid tumor. Recent evidence supports a very minimal risk of aggressive behavior for these tumors, and pathologists in our area are no longer classifying these as malignant in the final diagnosis. |
As of January 1, 2021 Non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP) C739 is no longer reportable for cases diagnosed 1/1/2021 forward. See the ICD-O-3.2 material on the NAACCR website,https://www.naaccr.org/icdo3/#1582820761121-27c484fc-46a7 _____________________________________________ Answer for cases diagnosed 1-1-2017 to 12/31/2020 Report NIFTP and assign ICD-O-3 morphology code 8343/2. See the NAACCR document, page 3, https://20tqtx36s1la18rvn82wcmpn-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/What-You-Need-to-Know-for-2017.pdf |
2016 |
|
|
20160062 | Grade--Kidney: Should WHO/ISUP grade for renal cell carcinoma be coded for cases diagnosed 2016 and later? See discussion.
|
The 2016 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System appears to be moving away from using Fuhrman grading toward using WHO/ISUP grade. These seem like similar 4 grade staging systems; however, the SEER Manual specifically states to not use the Special Grade System table for WHO/ISUP. We are seeing the WHO/ISUP grade being used on 2016 pathology reports.
Examples of new grading for renal cell carcinomas Histologic type: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma Histologic grade (WHO/ISUP 2016): Grade 3 in a background of 2 (of 4). And Histologic type: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma Histologic grade (ISUP): Grade 2. |
Do not record WHO/ISUP grade in the grade/differentiation field.
Designated fields for this grade system are being proposed for future implementation. |
2016 |
|
|
20160064 | Behavior--Prostate: What is the correct behavior of intraductal carcinoma from a prostate biopsy with a Gleason score 4+4=8. While highly aggressive, but not suggestive of invasion, coding behavior as /2 seems inappropriate. |
WHO classifies intraductal carcinoma of the prostate 8500/2. According to WHO, "the hallmark of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate is a proliferation of prostate carcinoma cells that is within and may significantly expand the native prostatic ducts and acini, with the basal cell layer at least partially preserved." Further, differentiation between intraductal carcinoma and infiltrating high-grade carcinoma of the prostate may require basal cell stains. Under Prognosis, WHO states: " intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on prostate biopsies is often associated with high-grade cancer (with a mean Gleason score of 8) ." So while it may seem counter-intuitive, assign behavior code /2 when the diagnosis is intraductal carcinoma of the prostate. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160005 | Reportability--Skin: Is this a reportable skin cancer? See discussion. |
Patient had a skin biopsy and this is the interpretation: NASAL SUPRATIP: INVASIVE BASAL CELL CARCINOMA OF SKIN WITH NEUROENDOCRINE DIFFERENTIATION
NOTE: The deep margin is positive for tumor; peripheral margins negative for tumor. The tumor has a basaloid appearance with focal areas appearing slightly squamoid, and it demonstrates myxoid/mucinous retraction from the stroma. It does not demonstrate peripheral palisading of cells within tumor nests and has nuclear chromatin which suggests neuroendocrine differentiation. Mitotic rate is more brisk than typical basal cell carcinoma as well. The differential diagnosis includes basal cell carcinoma with or without neuroendocrine differentiation, basal cell carcinoma with squamous differentiation, basaloid squamous cell carcinoma, Merkel cell carcinoma and metastatic small cell carcinoma. The tumor is further characterized per immunostains x 9 (controls work well). Tumor cells are positive for Ber EP4 and p63; focally positive for Chromagranin; while negative for EMA, CK20, CK7, TTF-1, CD56 and Synaptophysin. Overall, the staining pattern supports basal cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation. |
Basal cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation of the skin is not reportable to SEER.
In this case, the pathologist discussed several possible options, and determined that the final diagnosis is basal cell ca with neuroendocrine diff based at least partially on the immunostains. |
2016 |
|
|
20160016 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: Can the histology for a high grade urothelial carcinoma described as having "extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation" be coded to sarcomatoid transitional cell carcinoma (8122/3)? Example; TURBT, Final Diagnosis - Urothelial carcinoma, high grade. Type/grade comment: Extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation is present (40-50% of tumor volume). |
Code high grade urothelial carcinoma described as having "extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation" to sarcomatoid transitional cell carcinoma (8122/3). |
2016 | |
|
|
20160076 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: What is the histology code for a tumor originating in the cerebellum and extending into the fourth venrticle described as a glioblastoma with primitive neuroectodermal tumor component (WHO Grade IV)? |
The WHO Classification of CNS tumours lists glioblastoma with primitive neuroectodermal tumor component as a subtype of glioblastoma and assigns 9440/3. Also referred to as glioblastoma with a primitive neuronal component. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160048 | Reportability--Kidney: Is renal cell neoplasm of oncocytosis reportable based on the pathology from a nephrectomy? See Discussion. |
The pathology diagnosis reads: Diagnosis Right Kidney, Laparoscopic Nephrectomy:
-Renal Cell Neoplasm of Oncocytosis (pT1a, pNX See Comment and Template).
-Surgical margins free of tumor.
Kidney, right, nephrectomy:
Tumor histologic type: Renal cell neoplasms of oncocytosis (see Note)
Sarcomatoid features (%) Not identified
Tumor size: 4 cm (greatest dimension largest tumor)
Other dimensions: 2.7 x 2.5 cm
Macroscopic extent of tumor: Limited to kidney
Focality: Multifocal
Number of tumors: 11 grossly visible, range 0.2 4 cm
Fuhrman grade: 2 of 4
Microscopic extent of tumor:
Perinephric fat invasion: Not identified
Renal sinus invasion: Not identified
Other: N/A
Renal vein involvement: Not identified
Adrenal gland present: No
Involved by tumor: N/A
Direct invasion or metastasis: N/A
Cancer at resection margin: Not identified
Location(s): N/A
Pathologic findings in nonneoplastic kidney: Multiple collections of oncocytic cells
Hilar lymph nodes present: No
Number of involved/number present: N/A
"Thank you for sending this fascinating case. In reviewing the H&E-stained slides, we recognize that multiple lesions of varying sizes are present within the specimen, some with features of oncocytoma, some with those of chromophobe RCC, and yet others with features of both. The immunohistochemical studies for CK7 performed at your institution serve to highlight this point with "mass #1" showing focal single cell staining typical of oncocytoma and "mass #2" showing a patchy and confluent staining pattern typical of chromophobe RCC. This second mass was also positive with special stain for Hales colloidal iron. As mentioned, the morphology varies somewhat in each tumor, however, every single mass is comprised of cells with eosinophilic (pink to bright red) cytopolasm. Some tumors show more tightly nested or sheet like growth, others are more tubular or microcystic. Another important feature, present on slides of renal cortex are microscopic tumorlets seemingly emanating from eosinophilic tubules. This finding, along with the presence of numerous oncocytic neoplasms is supportive of the above diagnosis. The absence of clinical features to suggest Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome is noted. Although these tumors are not recognized in the current classification of renal tumors, we regard these neoplasms as being a distinct entity, unrelated to both oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, and have applied the designation "renal tumor of oncocytosis" to such lesions (Gobbo S, et al. Renal cell neoplasms of oncocytosis have distinct morphologic, immunohistochemical, and cytogenetic profiles. Am J Surg Patholl 34:620-626, 2010). We concur that the expected behavior in these cases is one of indolence." |
Do not report Renal cell neoplasms of oncocytosis. According to our expert pathologist consultant, these neoplasms do not behave "in a malignant fashion." They are not currently classified as malignant and are not reportable to cancer registries. |
2016 |
|
|
20160051 | Diagnostic confirmation: When a CT guided Fine Needle Aspiration is performed and the pathology report indicates smears and cell block were prepared, if the diagnosis is positive for cancer, can you code diagnostic confirmation as 2 (positive cytology) because of the cell block? |
Yes, assign diagnostic confirmation code 2 for diagnosis based on smears and cell block from CT guided FNA. This reply pertains to solid tumors. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160065 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: What histology code and MP/H Rule applies to the Histologic Type described as adenocarcinoma, mixed invasive mucinous and non-mucinous which involves multiple lung tumors present in a single lobe? See Discussion. |
The patient had a lower lobectomy with final diagnosis of adenocarcinoma with the following features: Tumor Focality: Multiple separate tumor nodules in same lobe; Tumor Size: 2.6 cm, 0.7 cm, 0.3 cm and 0.1 cm in greatest dimension; Histologic Type: Adenocarcinoma, mixed invasive mucinous and non-mucinous adenocarcinoma; Histologic Grade: Moderately differentiated. |
Assign histology code 8254/3.
The 2007 MP/H Lung rules do not include coding guidelines for mixed mucinous and non-mucinous tumors. Lung Table 1 (in the Terms and Definitions, pages 37-38, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/mphrules_definitions.pdf ) is very specific about which histologies can be coded to mixed adenocarcinoma (8255/3). Mucinous is not included per the note at the end of Table 1. Per WHO 3rd and 4th Ed Tumors of the Lung, mixed mucinous and non-mucinous tumors of the lung are classified as 8254/3. Mixed invasive mucinous and non-mucinous adenocarcinoma is a synonym for BAC, mucinous and non-mucinous. |
2016 |
|
|
20160011 | Reportability--Stomach: Are microcarcinoid tumors reportable? See discussion. |
SINQ 20081076 states carcinoid tumorlets of the lung are not reportable and are defined as being less than 5 mm in diameter and benign. Per the WHO Classification of Digestive Tumours, microcarcinoid tumors are precursor lesions/nodules measuring greater than 0.5 mm, but less than 5 mm (0.5 cm). Is the term microcarcinoid tumor equivalent to carcinoid tumorlet, and therefore not reportable? Or is a microcarcinoid tumor a reportable type of neuroendocrine tumor (NET)? |
Microcarcinoid and carcinoid tumors are reportable. The ICD-O-3 histology code is 8240/3. Microcarcinoid is a designation for neuroendocrine tumors of the stomach when they are less than 0.5 cm. in size. Neuroendocrine tumors of the stomach are designated carcinoid when they are 0.5 cm or larger.
The term microcarcinoid tumor is not equivalent to carcinoid tumorlet. |
2016 |
An official website of the United States government
