MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Melanoma: Is a melanoma with an unknown laterality a different laterality for the purposes of applying Multiple Primaries/Histology Rule M4? See Discussion.
8/1/2016 Left Abdomen biopsy: Early melanoma in situ (C445-2, 8720/2).
Does rule M4 apply and multiple primaries should be reported or does rule M8 apply and a single primary should be reported?
Abstract multiple primaries following Multiple Primary Rule M4. Unknown laterality is a different laterality for the purposes of applying the MP/H rules for melanoma.
NOTE: This answer applies to cases diagnosed prior to 2018. As of 1/1/2018, early melanoma is not reportable.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Pancreas: What is the histology code of invasive adenocarcinoma, non-mucinous with intraductal tubulopapillary features, moderately differentiated, from the pathology report final diagnosis of the pancreas? Does 'intraductal" refer to a non-invasive/in-situ component or describe the pattern of growth?
Assign 8503/3, intraductal papillary adenocarcinoma with invasion, to capture the more specific features of the adenocarcinoma. Histology Rule H13 for Other Sites states to code the most specific histologic term. Examples include Adenocarcinoma and a more specific adenocarcinoma. Note: The specific histology may be identified as type, subtype, predominantly, with features of, major, or with ___ differentiation.
Reportability/Brain and CNS: Is incidentaloma reportable from brain and central nervous system (CNS) imaging? See Discussion.
We are seeing the term "incidentaloma" on magnetic resonance imaging (MR) reports of head and also with physician statements. For example, this MR of the head: Impression--Suboptimal study due to motion degradation. Heterogeneously enhancing pituitary gland without evidence of acute abnormality. A 3 mm focus of relative hypoenhancement in the left gland is favored to represent an incidentaloma. Advise correlation with clinical findings.
Also, there are cases where the scans show meningioma and then at a later date it is stated to be an incidentaloma in physician notes.
Is the term "incidentaloma" alone reportable, if the term "tumor" for CNS cases is never stated? When I googled the term, it is stated to mean "tumor."
The term "incidentaloma" alone is not reportable. Look for a reportable term elsewhere or in later information. When the term "incidentaloma" is used on a magnetic resonance imaging (MR) report, it refers to "a disease or physical condition found as a secondary by-product of capturing the necessary volume of tissue within the field of view of the MR examination" (http://radsource.us/incidentaloma). It is not necessarily neoplastic.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney: How is the histology coded and what rule(s) apply to the classification of succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma? See Discussion.
Partial nephrectomy showed carcinoma, histologic type: succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma. This is not a term in the ICD-O, and is not a histology covered in the Kidney MPH rules. However, a recent web search indicates this is a specific type of RCC that was added to the 2016 WHO classification of RCC (per abstract: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27179267) and makes up 0.05-0.2% of RCC cases (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4229399/).
Code the histology to renal cell carcinoma, NOS (8312/3). While WHO lists succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma in the latest edition, no specific histology code is provided. MP/H Rule H10 applies since only one histology type is provided, though no code is listed.
Grade/Neuroblastoma: What grade is to be used when pathology states only differentiating retroperitoneal neuroblastoma?
For cases diagnosed prior to 2018
Assign grade code 2 for "differentiating" retroperitoneal neuroblastoma. The rationale of our expert pathologist advisor is that "it leaves the grade 1 category open (since a "well differentiated neuroblastoma" is actually called ganglioneuroblastoma), and it also avoids putting "differentiating" into what is usually a well differentiated category."
Additionally, assign grade code 3 to a poorly differentiated retroperitoneal neuroblastoma and grade code 4 to an undifferentiated retroperitoneal neuroblastoma.
For cases diagnosed 2018 and later
Follow the instructions for coding grade in SEER*RSA
Reportability/Histology--Skin: Is 'skin, left temporal scalp, low grade adnexal carcinoma, probable sweat gland origin' reportable as 8400/3, skin of temple?
Assign 8390/3 for adnexal carcinoma of skin. 8390/3 is reportable, including 8390/3 of skin.
MP/H Rules/Histology/Grade--Unknown & ill-defined sites: What is the correct histology and grade of a liver biopsy with metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma low to intermediate grade if primary site is unknown? See Discussion.
CT-guided liver biopsy, diagnosis: Metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma. Diagnosis Comment: Cytology of the tumor appears to be low to intermediate grade.
Would this case be coded as an atypical carcinoid tumor (8249/3) based on SINQ 20170033 and the statement of intermediate grade; or should this be 8240/3 (neuroendocrine tumor) per SINQ 20160023 because it is a metastatic site? More clarification is needed on when to code 8249/3 or 8240/3 for a neuroendocrine carcinoma or neoplasm seen in a metastatic specimen only when there is specified grade.
Assign histology code 8246/3 and assign code 9 for grade.
Since the primary is unknown and the type of NEC is not definitively stated, code neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS based on the diagnosis.
Code grade from primary tumor only. Assign grade code 9 when the primary site is unknown. See instruction 2.b. in the Grade Coding Instructions for 2014+.
SINQ 20170033 and SINQ 20160023 provide instructions for coding the grade/differentiation field. Using these SINQ questions to code histology could lead to errors.
Reportability--Bone: Are giant cell tumors (GCT) of the bone that metastasize to the lung reportable? See Discussion.
Patient had radical resection of pelvic giant cell tumor of bone in August 2012. Final diagnosis clarified that no features to suggest a frankly malignant giant cell tumor were identified.
July 2013 left upper lobe nodules were removed and found to be consistent with multifocal metastatic lung involvement with a previous pelvic giant cell tumor of bone. However, the pathology report comment specifies there are no histological high-grade features to suggest a malignancy:
While SINQ 20091087 may apply, these metastases clearly arrived in the lung by hematogenous spread. The previous SINQ note refers to a case where the implants/metastases can seed the surrounding pelvic and abdominal structures by rupture of the tumor or intraoperative tumor spillage. That type of spread is not quite the same as the current case showing tumor cells leaving the primary tumor/site and travelling through the blood to implant in the lungs.
This case is not reportable. According to the WHO Classification of Bone Tumors, pulmonary metastases from GCTs are "very slow-growing and are thought to represent pulmonary implants that result from embolization of intravascular growths of GCT. Some of these benign pulmonary implants can regress spontaneously. A small number, however, exhibit progressive enlargement and can lead to the death of the patient." The pathologist for this case is very clear that no malignancy was found in the lung or in the bone.