| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20210065 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018/2021)/Histology--Lung: Should there be an exception to the Solid Tumor Rules for Lung to allow coding a more specific histology described by ambiguous terminology, when the only pathologic workup done is a cytology report? Due to the unique nature of lung cases which are often diagnosed on imaging and cytology without more definitive pathology, we are seeing many cases where the existing Solid Tumor guidelines result in very generic NOS histology codes. For example, lung mass found on imaging with a fine needle aspirate of a lymph node, final diagnosis "positive for malignancy" and comment "consistent with squamous cell carcinoma." See Discussion. |
The Solid Tumor histology coding guideline #3 for Lung states that an ambiguous histology can only be coded over an NOS when a physician clinically confirms it or the patient receives treatment based on the ambiguous histology; similar instructions exist in rules H3 and H12. We are in a central registry and don't typically have access to physician notes or treatment plans; unfortunately our hospital abstracts rarely document physician confirmation of ambiguous histology and we are uncertain if we should accept their coding of the more specific histology, assuming they did find clinical confirmation that was not documented. If not, our understanding of the Solid Tumor rules is that the histology in such a case would have to be coded as malignancy NOS (8000/3) per the non-ambiguous final diagnosis, and that we cannot use the more specific but ambiguous squamous cell carcinoma since we don't have definite clinical confirmation. We also have a fair number of cytology-only lung cases without any hospital information to clinically confirm an ambiguous histology. |
Code histology as squamous cell carcinoma, NOS (8070/3) using Lung Solid Tumor Rules, Rule H3 if no other information is available. Rule H3 states: If the case is accessioned (added to your database) based on a single histology described by ambiguous terminology and no other histology information is available/documented, code that histology. |
2021 |
|
|
20210060 | Reportability/Histology--Thymus: Is a 2021 diagnosis of a type A microscopic thymoma reportable? See Discussion. |
ICD-O-3.2 lists microscopic thymoma as benign (8580/0) and thymoma, type A as malignant (8581/3). January 2021: Left central neck node dissection for thyroid carcinoma with thymic tissue showing an incidental type A microscopic thymoma, described as a small (<0.2 cm) focus. Diagnosis comments further indicate this is morphologically consistent with a microscopic thymoma (type A). |
Report this case as type A thymoma. We consulted an expert physician and his advice on this specific case is to interpret it as a malignancy and report. Use text fields to record the details of this case. |
2021 |
|
|
20210036 | Update to current manual/Lymphovascular invasion: Are lymphvascular invasion and lymphvascular space invasion on a pathology report the same thing or do they describe different things? |
We confirmed with our expert pathologist consultant that lymphovascular invasion and lymphovascular space invasion are synonymous. |
2021 | |
|
|
20210024 | Primary Site--Vulva: What is the primary site of patient with an excision of a left vulvar cystic mass showing focal mammary-type ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) on 11/06/2020? See Discussion. |
Final Pathologic Diagnosis: Vulvar cyst, excision: Focal mammary-type ductal carcinoma in situ, intermediate grade, arising within cystically dilated duct (See Comment) Size of DCIS: 0.7 CM. Margins: Negative. Comment Sections demonstrate a cystically dilated duct. Focally, at the periphery of the duct, there is a neoplastic monomorphic proliferation of ductal cells with intermediate grade nuclei. No associated necrosis is identified. Immunostains for GATA-3 and estrogen receptor are strongly positive within the neoplastic cells, supporting origin from mammary-like epithelium. Immunostain for p63 demonstrates preservation of a basal layer around the dilated duct, including the region involved by DCIS. Immunostain for cytokeratin 5/6 shows loss of expression within the DCIS. No stromal invasion is identified. The cyst appears to be completely excised. 12/01/2020 post op visit with surgeon: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the left vulva in an excised cystic lesion. PLAN: I reviewed the pathologic findings from the excision of the left vulvar cyst. This appears to be a cystic lesion in the mammary line with focal DCIS. It was excised completely with negative margins. It would not warrant any additional treatment except expectant management. |
Code the primary site to vulva. Use text fields to record the details. According to the WHO classification, several types of primary vulvar mammary-like carcinoma have been reported. It is rare and is thought to arise from specialized anogenital mammary-like glands within the vulva. It does not arise from ectopic breast tissue and is does not represent metastatic breast carcinoma. |
2021 |
|
|
20210069 | EOD 2018/Summary Stage 2018--Intrahepatic Bile Duct: How should Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor (PT) be coded for invasion of or into (but not through) the visceral peritoneum for an intrahepatic bile duct primary? See Discussion. |
Invasion of the visceral peritoneum is Regional (code 2) in Summary Stage. EOD PT code 500 is for invasion BEYOND the visceral peritoneum into adjacent connective tissues, and maps to T3 and Regional Summary Stage, but that code seems too extensive. All lower EOD codes map to Localized Summary Stage. |
Assign code 500 for EOD Primary Tumor for now. We have confirmed with AJCC that "invasion of" but not "through" the visceral peritoneum maps to a T2 and not T3. Involvement of the visceral peritoneum for Summary Stage is Regional and does not make a distinction between "invasion of" or "invasion through." Any involvement of the visceral peritoneum is regional. To correct this situation would require a new code, which would derive a T2/RE. That code will be added to the updates for 2023. Code 500 will derive the appropriate Summary Stage of 2 (Regional). We are aware that this will derive the incorrect T; however, there is no work around at this time that will derive the correct T and Summary Stage, so we are defaulting to deriving the correct Summary Stage. |
2021 |
|
|
20210070 | Histology/Reportability--Digestive System: Is “neuroendocrine neoplasm” reportable? See Discussion. |
We are confused by SINQs 20180097, 20150001, and 20140051. The latter two indicate that “well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasms” of the duodenum and appendix are reportable because they’re synonymous with neuroendocrine tumor (NET). Yet 20180097 states “primary hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasm” is NOT reportable unless there is documentation that it’s being used as a synonym for Primary Hepatic Neuroendocrine Tumor (PHNET). In addition, we see in the 2021 ICDO-3.2 update that only “poorly differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm” is listed with behavior code /3 and noted to be reportable for 2021+ on the companion annotated histology list. Does reportability of neuroendocrine neoplasms depend on primary site, differentiation terminology within the histology name, or something else? Our casefinding staff is hoping for a general reportability guideline to follow when they come across “neuroendocrine neoplasms” NOS. For example, we have a 2020 pathology report for a core biopsy of a soft tissue pelvic mass with final diagnosis of low grade neuroendocrine neoplasm; there is no further clarification as to whether it is felt to be primary or metastatic, and we have no other associated records for this patient in our central registry. |
Reportability of neuroendocrine neoplasms depends on primary site, terminology, and differentiation. "Neuroendocrine neoplasm" is an umbrella term for a variety of neuroendocrine tumors and carcinomas. Neuroendocrine neoplasm, not otherwise specified (NEN, NOS) is not reportable as in your example unless it is being used as a synonym for neuroendocrine tumor (NET), as with digestive system tumors. According to WHO Classification of Digestive System Tumors, 5th ed., NENs of the appendix and liver are epithelial neoplasms with neuroendocrine differentiation, including well-differentiated tumors (NETs) and poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs). The guidance in SINQ 20180097, 20150001, and 20140051 is still valid. |
2021 |
|
|
20210019 | Reportability/Histology--Cervix: Is a stratified mucin-producing intraepithelial lesion (SMILE) lesion reportable? Is it reportable if it is invasive SMILE? What is the correct histology? See Discussion. |
Cervix, loop electrosurgical excision procedure: Cervix at transformation zone with stratified mucin-producing intraepithelial lesion (SMILE). SMILE is present at the ectocervical margin. An immunohistochemical stain* for p16 demonstrates strong, diffuse positivity in the lesional epithelium. A mucicarmine stain is also positive in the lesional epithelium, supporting the diagnosis of SMILE. |
Stratified mucin-producing intraepithelial lesion (SMILE) of the cervix is not reportable. SMILE is a variant of adenocarcinoma in situ and is coded 8140/2. In situ neoplasms of the cervix are not reportable. According to the WHO Classification of tumors, p16 is positive and there is a high Ki-67 proliferation index. If SMILE is stated to be invasive, it is reportable, as any other invasive cervical malignancy would be reportable. |
2021 |
|
|
20210068 | Mets at Diagnosis Fields/Primary Site--Lymph Nodes: How are the Mets at Diagnosis fields coded when the metastatic adenocarcinoma involves only one lymph node area and the primary site is unknown? See Discussion. |
In 2018, patient has lymph node metastasis confined to left retroperitoneal area; core biopsy was done which showed metastatic adenocarcinoma, unknown primary site. There are no other sites of disease found. Should I code Mets at Diagnosis--Distant Lymph Node(s) as 1, and the others such as bone and lung as 0? |
In a situation like this with one area of metastatic involvement and an unknown primary, if there is no further information, we advise that the metastasis are "regional" until/unless proven otherwise. With this in mind, code the Mets at Diagnosis fields as 0, including the Mets at Diagnosis--Distant Lymph Node(s). This case should continue to be worked up to identify the primary site. If a primary site is identified later, update the abstract accordingly. In the meantime, use text fields to describe the situation. |
2021 |
|
|
20210016 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018, 2021)/Histology--Kidney: What is the correct histology code for a kidney primary described as clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma"? Should we use H2 and code 8312/3 or H3 and code 8323/3? |
Assign 8323/3, clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma using the 2018 Kidney Solid Tumor Rules, Rule H1, as this is a single histology, a variant of renal cell carcinoma NOS. |
2021 | |
|
|
20210078 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018/2021)/Multiple Primaries--Skin Cancer: How many primaries are assigned for sebaceous carcinomas using the Solid Tumor/Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules? Does this scenario represent eight separate primaries? See Discussion. |
Details 4/15/2018: Right abdominal wall mass excision: infiltrating sebaceous carcinoma. Noted to have a history of Muir-Torre/Lynch syndrome. 1/21/2019: Two left upper back mass excisions and two lower back (laterality not specified) mass excisions: infiltrating sebaceous carcinomas 8/7/2019: Excision of multiple sebaceous carcinomas from the right posterior back, left posterior thigh, left anterior abdominal wall, left anterior thigh, right scrotum, right lower abdominal fold, all positive for sebaceous carcinoma on pathology report 9/30/2020: Right gluteal mass, left gluteal mass, back (NOS) excisions: sebaceous carcinomas. 10/14/2020: Right back excision: sebaceous carcinoma. Op note: History of Lynch syndrome with multiple sebaceous carcinomas, recurrent back mass, site of prior mass resection. 10/18/2021: Right thigh excision: sebaceous carcinoma Proposed primaries using MP/H Other Sites Rules #1: 4/15/2018: C445-1 #2: 1/21/2019: C445-2, separate from #1 per M8, same as 1/21/19 C445-9 per M18 #3: 8/7/2019: C445-1, separate from #1 per M10, separate from #2 per M8 #4: 8/7/2019: C447-2, separate from #1 & #3 per M8, separate from #2 per M12 #5: 8/7/2019: C632, separate from #1 per M10, separate from #2-#4 per M11 #6: 9/30/2020: C445-2, separate from #1 & #3 per M8, separate from #2, #4 & #5 per M10 #7: 9/30/2020: C445-1, separate from #2, #4 & #6 per M8, separate from #1, #3 & #5 per M10; I do not think the back, NOS (C445-9) is a new primary per M18. #8: 10/18/2021: C447-1, separate from #2, #4 & #6 per M8, separate from #1, #3, #5 & #7 per M10 |
Assign the number of primaries following the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules. Based on sites, laterality and or timing there are 8 primaries. This is similar to SINQ 20061112 that advised to follow the Multiple Primaries/Histology rules for sebaceous carcinoma. According to the WHO Classification of Skin Tumors, 5th edition, there is a 30-40% risk of local tumor recurrence, and 20-25% risk of distant metastasis. In only one instance did a physician refer this as a recurrence in the available notes. |
2021 |
Home
