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: 11/04/2025 03:08 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20170025

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: Is this the same primary per MP/H Rule M10? Ductal carcinoma of the left breast in 2013, treated with a lumpectomy. New tumor with ductal and lobular carcinoma in the same breast in 2016.

The 2016 diagnosis is the same primary. MP/H Rule M10 for breast cancer applies. Do not change the original histology code. Use text fields to document the later histologic type -- duct and lobular.

 2017
20170065

MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: How should histology be coded for a single tumor with final diagnosis undifferentiated (anaplastic) carcinoma arising in association with papillary thyroid carcinoma and the Summary Cancer Data states Histologic type: Undifferentiated (anaplastic) carcinoma only? See Discussion.

The Summary Cancer Data does not seem to describe a more specific histology, but it does describe the tumor histology with the worst outcome and the most extensive tumor. The anaplastic carcinoma grossly extended into skeletal muscle and gave rise to multiple regional lymph node metastases. The more appropriate histology seems to be 8021.

However, current MP/H Rules for a single tumor indicate the histology should be coded to the numerically higher histology code (8260). Coding the histology to 8260 does not account for the more aggressive tumor. Should this histology be 8260 or 8021?

Code the most specific histologic term, 8260, for papillary carcinoma of the thyroid using Multiple Primary/Histology Rule H13 for Other Sites (single tumor, invasive section). Use text fields to describe the complete histology.

 2017
20170054

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries should be abstracted for a patient with a 2011 diagnosis of oligodendroglioma followed by biopsy of tumor which demonstrated progression in 2016 with pathology report Final Diagnosis indicating WHO grade III anaplastic astrocytoma? See Discussion.

The clinical documentation clearly identifies residual tumor after the 2011 craniotomy. Scans demonstrated slow enlargement of the tumor over the years, which resulted in a repeat craniotomy. The pathologist noted in the diagnosis comment section of the pathology report that

Is this a single primary per MP/H Rule M3 (A single tumor is always a single primary), or an additional brain malignancy per MP/H Rule M8 (Tumors with ICD-O-3 histology codes on different branches in Chart 1 or Chart 2 are multiple primaries)?

Based on the information provided, this is a single primary. The 2011 tumor was not completely removed and progressed over the years. MP/H Rule M3 for malignant brain cancer applies. Do not change the original histology code. Use text fields to document the later histologic type of anaplastic astrocytoma, WHO grade III.

 2017
20170024

Reportability/Histology--Colon: Is tubular adenoma with high grade dysplasia and focal invasion from a pathology report of a colon biopsy reportable?; if so, what is the histology code?

Tubular adenoma with high grade dysplasia and focal invasion is reportable. Assign the histology code and behavior as 8210/3 (Adenocarcinoma in tubular adenoma).

NAACCR Guidelines for ICD-O-3 Implementation discuss the term high grade dysplasia (without invasion). High grade dysplasia and related terms are under review and study for consideration as a reportable neoplasm. Registries should check with their state reporting legislation to see if included in the reporting requirements.

 2017
20170058

MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the correct histology code for an initial biopsy of non-small cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine phenotype, possible large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma with a subsequent re-biopsy showing poorly differentiated small cell carcinoma after chemotherapy with no response? See discussion.

Patient had a biopsy in April 2014; pathology was reported as non-small cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine phenotype, possible large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. The patient had five cycles of cisplatin/etoposide with no response. In May 2015, a re-biopsy at a referral institution reports poorly differentiated small cell carcinoma and states "feels that this could have been the histology all along and why patient has failed multi lines of chemo."

Code to 8041, small cell carcinoma, because the medical opinon confirms that this was the correct histology from the begining.

"Possible" is not an ambiguous term used to code histology. The MP/H rules do not include coding phenotype. That leaves non-small cell (8046/3) at time of diagnosis. Chemotherapy does not alter cell type so its likely the tumor was small cell all along only now proven with additional testing.

Page 14 of the SEER Coding Manual gives examples of when to change the abstract's original codes and here is one example: When better information is available later. Example 1: Consults from specialty labs, pathology report addendums or comments or other information have been added to the chart. Reports done during the diagnostic workup and placed on the chart after the registrar abstracted the information may contain valuable information. Whenever these later reports give better information about the histology, grade of tumor, primary site, etc., change the codes to reflect the better information.

 2017
20170009

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries should be accessioned if patient has a LUL lung biopsy with squamous cell carcinoma and subsequently a station 4L node biopsy with small cell carcinoma? See Discussion.

Patient has only a LUL tumor on imaging. The tumor board initially states, possibly a mixed tumor, likely IIIA SCC and/or IIIA or B small cell. Later, the physician refers to it as "Stage III lung cancer, mixed histology with small cell in the lymph node and squamous cell in the LUL mass." Patient has no further workup and has declined therapy.

Accession the case as a single lung primary since there is only a mixed tumor noted by the tumor board. Code the histology as 8045, combination/mixed small cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, per Table 1 of the Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules.

 2017
20170023

Reportability/Date of Diagnosis--Prostate: Is PI-RADS 5 diagnostic of prostate cancer, and if so, can we use the date of the impression on the scan that states PI-RADS category 5 as the diagnosis date? See Discussion.

We are seeing more use of PI-RAD categories on scans. The final impression on the scan will be PI-RADS Category 5, with no specific statement of malignancy. The scans include a blanket statement with the definitions of the PI-RADS categories as below.

PI-RADS (v2) categories:

PI-RADS 1 - Very low (clinically significant cancer is highly unlikely to be present)

PI-RADS 2 - Low (clinically significant cancer is unlikely to be present)

PI-RADS 3 - Intermediate (the presence of clinically significant cancer is equivocal)

PI-RADS 4 - High (clinically significant cancer is likely to be present)

PI-RADS 5 - Very high (clinically significant cancer is highly likely to be present)

A previous SINQ 20010094 indicates that we cannot use BI-RADS categories for breast cancer diagnosis, and SINQ 20160008 indicates we can use LI-RADS for HCC diagnosis, but those definitions are slightly different. Most often there will be a subsequent biopsy diagnosis of carcinoma, so the question is also in reference to Diagnosis Date. Can we use the date of the scans impression, which states PI-RADS category 5, as the Diagnosis Date?

Updated answer

PI-RADS categories 4 and 5 are reportable, unless there is other information to the contrary.

PI-RADS 4: high (clinically significant cancer is likely to be present)

PI-RADS 5: very high (clinically significant cancer is highly likely to be present)

Use the date of the scan as the date of diagnosis.

 2017
20170055

First Course of Treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Corpus uteri: Do you code total hysterectomy or radical hysterectomy when a specimen indicates the uterus, cervix, ovaries, fallopian tubes, and right and left parametrium were resected, but shows no portion of the vagina. See Discussion.

AFS1-AFS2-frozen section control, endomyometrium; AFS3-frozen section control, subserosal intramural mass; A4-anterior cervix; A5-posterior cervix; A6-anterior cervical endometrial junction; A7-posterior cervical endometrial junction; A8-A10-anterior endomyometrium, including tumor; A11-A13-posterior endomyometrium, including tumor and adjacent mass; A14-random section subserosal mass; A15-left parametrium at margin of resection; A16-right parametrium at margin of resection; A17-A18-left ovary and fallopian tube; A19-A20-right ovary and fallopian tube. The final diagnosis includes Endometrial adenocarcinoma, favor serous carcinoma, with papillary and solid areas. Tumor involves: Cervix present, Right ovary, Left ovary, Right fallopian tube, Left fallopian tube, Right parametrium, Left parametrium.

Assign code 50 for total hysterectomy. According to Appendix C Surgery Codes for Corpus Uteri of the 2016 SEER Coding and Staging Manual, total hysterectomy is surgery to remove the entire uterus, including the cervix; whereas, radical hysterectomy includes the vagina.

 2017
20170004

MP/H Ruels/Histology--Kidney/renal pelvis: How is MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with Xp11 translocation coded? See Discussion.

Pathology states: Translocation renal cell carcinoma. Comment Tumor morphology and IHC profile consistent with MiT family translocation RCC with Xp11 translocation.

Assign 8312/3 to MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with Xp11 translocation.

The recent WHO 4th Ed Tumors of the Urinary System has proposed a new ICD-O-3 code for MiT family translocation RCC, however the implementation of this new code has not yet been approved by the standard setters (SEER, CoC, CDC, NAACCR). Until it is approved, code histology to renal cell carcinoma (8312/3).

 2017
20170028

MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney: How should histology be coded for a clear cell renal cell carcinoma when the CAP protocol indicates sarcomatoid features are present? See Discussion.

Sarcomotoid (8318) is listed as a specific renal cell subtype in the MP/H manual, but it is not listed as a renal cell subtype in the most recent WHO blue book for Urinary Organs. We are wondering if sarcomatoid features, as listed in the CAP protocol format in the following example, should be ignored when coding histology?

Left kidney, radical nephrectomy:

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma, with the following features:

Tumor size: 8.5 X 6 cm.

Tumor focality: Unifocal.

Macroscopic extent of tumor: Tumor limited to kidney.

Sarcomatoid features: Present (<20% of tumor shows sarcomatoid features).

Histologic grade: G4.

Microscopic tumor extension: Tumor limited to kidney.

Margins: All margins negative for invasive carcinoma.

Lymph-vascular invasion: Not identified.

Code 8255 (adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes). The Multiple Primaries/Histology Rule H6 applies as there are two or more specific renal cell carcinoma types, clear cell and sarcomatoid (Spindle cell), as listed in Table 1 of the kidney Terms and definitions.

 2017