Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20210011 | Primary site: Is C720 the correct primary site for a diagnosis of a paraspinal neuroblastoma on autopsy in a nine month old with Noonan syndrome? See Discussion. |
Autopsy/Pathology Report (2020) excerpts External Examination Nervous System: There is an 8.5 cm mass located in the right thoracic paraspinal area. Final Anatomic Diagnosis Clinical History: Paraspinal mass suspicious for neuroblastic tumor (detected by imaging studies) Nervous System: Right thoracic paraspinal neuroblastoma, poorly differentiated |
Assign primary site code C473 for this case based on the information provided (peripheral nerves and autonomic nervous system of thorax). From our expert pathologist consultant: The origin of neuroblastomas is generally in the adrenal medulla or one of the sympathetic ganglia on either side of the vertebral column (although they have been reported in many other locations given the migration of the neural crest cells embryologically). |
2021 |
|
|
20210063 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018/2021)/Multiple primaries--Ovary, Fallopian Tubes: How many primaries should be reported and for which primary site(s) when pathologist identifies bilateral ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma with involvement of the left fallopian tube (also showing serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC))? See Discussion. |
Patient is diagnosed July 2021 with high-grade serous carcinoma on ascites cytology. Tumor debulking total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in August shows high-grade serous carcinoma involving the right ovary (capsule intact, right fallopian tube is negative), left ovary (capsule ruptured), and fallopian tube. Pathologist has chosen tumor site to be bilateral ovaries in the staging summary, with the left fallopian tube listed as “other tissue/organ involvement” along with uterus, peritoneum, and omentum. Additional findings in staging summary includes serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC). Our interpretation of SINQ 20210025 is that any case with both ovarian and tubal involvement would be coded as a fallopian tube primary if STIC is present, even when the pathologist is clearly calling the case ovarian. If this is correct, then the previous SINQ 20120093 may need to be updated with a date restriction reference since it would be in disagreement with this instruction. If our interpretation is incorrect, then the STIC would be an additional primary per MP/H Rule M11. |
Bilateral ovarian tumors are a single primary per M7. Abstract the STIC as a second primary. SINQ 20210025 is intented to address situations with confliciting information about the primary site. The answers remain unchanged in 2012009 and 20210025. |
2021 |
|
|
20210018 | Reportability/Histology--Head & Neck: Is carcinoma cuniculatum of the hard palate diagnosed in 2017 reportable? Was this rare variant of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) missed in Casefinding? If reportable, what is the histology code? |
Carcinoma cuniculatum of the hard palate is reportable. Code to SCC, NOS (8070/3). Use text fields to record the details. While WHO recognizes carcinoma cuniculatum to be a new variant of oral cancer, it has not proposed a new ICD-O code for this neoplasm. |
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 |
|
|
20210003 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Primary Site--Head & Neck: The instructions for Table 9 of the Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules instruct registrars to code the primary site to C479 (Autonomic nervous system) for paragangliomas that arise in the head and neck region, but the ICD-O-3.2 provides a site-associated code for most of these tumors (C754, Carotid body and C755, Paraganglion). Which primary site is correct? See Discussion. |
While we recognize that paragangliomas originate in the parasympathetic or sympathetic nervous system, these are endocrine tumors and endocrine glands/structures are not included in ICD-O site code C479 (Autonomic nervous system). Endocrine tumors of the paraganglia have their own site codes (C75_) per the ICD-O. Additionally, the ICD-O-3.2 provides specific sites for most of the paragangliomas included in Table 9. Per the ICD-O-3.2, carotid body paraganglioma is C754, and middle ear paraganglioma, glomus jugulare tumor, jugulotympanic paraganglioma, and paraganglioma (NOS) are C755. Why are paragangliomas not coded to the paraganglia sites (C75_) provided in the ICD-O? Should these sites be added to the Head & Neck schema for the specific paragangliomas arising in the head and neck? Obtaining consistency in coding primary site for these tumors will be difficult if registrars use the ICD-O provided site codes instead of the primary site statement preceding Table 9. Additionally, as most registrars may use the ICD-O provided site code, the Head and Neck schema in the Solid Tumor Rules would not apply, the Other Sites schema would apply to sites C754 and C755. |
Always code primary site to the site of origin. Look for information about where the neoplasm originated. Primary site should always be coded to reflect the site of origin according to the medical opinion on the case. Always code the primary site based on where the tumor arose / site of origin. Site of origin may be indicated by terms such as "tumor arose from," "tumor originated in," or similar statements. Refer to ICD-O-3.2 and ICD-O-3 for topographty codes that are associated with specific histologies whenthe medical documentation does not specify the primary site. |
2021 |
|
|
20210001 | SEER*RSA/Required data items--Melanoma: The site-specific data item, Ulceration, states it is required by "All" in SEER*RSA but in the NAACCR Data Dictionary table it states is it required by SEER, Commission on Cancer (CoC), and Canadian Cancer Registry (CCCR), not the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR). Does the definition of "All" in SEER*RSA not include NPCR? Also, please explain the difference between Required by: "All" and "Required by CCCR/Canada, COC, NPCR, SEER" (all listed out). |
Use the NAACCR Data Dictionary Required Status Table or refer to standard setter requirements. Do not use SEER*RSA to determine which data items are required to be collected or transmitted. Though "All" in SEER*RSA generally refers to the standard setters including CoC, NPCR, CCCR, and SEER, some items in SEER*RSA need updating; this is planned for 2022. |
2021 | |
|
|
20220005 | Reportability--Ambiguous Terminology: Can the term “at most” preceding a statement of a reportable diagnosis be used to accession a case? See Discussion. |
A January 2022 endometrium biopsy and curettage both show final diagnosis of “mild cytologic atypia and glandular crowding, at most endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia.” Any subsequent surgery path is unlikely to provide clarification. |
Do not report the case in this scenario based on the diagnosis alone of mild cytologic atypia and glandular crowding, at most endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia. "At most" is not an ambiguous term for reportability. It appears that "at most" in this case refers to the worst possible option within other possible options (differential diagnosis). Differential diagnoses are "educated guesses" or hypotheses and are usually not reportable unless proven otherwise. As there is no clear statement of the diagnosis in this case, we recommend that you seek additional information, for example, clinical diagnosis, treatment, and patient care. |
2022 |
|
|
20220039 | Reportability/Histology--Eye: Is “squamous mucosa with high grade dysplasia” equivalent to a diagnosis of “high grade squamous dysplasia?” See Discussion. |
A conjunctival biopsy final diagnosis is squamous mucosa with moderate to high grade dysplasia. The diagnosis comment states that immunostains were performed and confirm squamous histology. This seems to imply a high grade squamous dysplasia, rather than a non-reportable high grade dysplasia. Does this case meet the criteria for reportable high grade squamous dysplasia? |
Squamous mucosa with high grade dysplasia is the same as high grade squamous dysplasia in the conjunctiva and is coded to 8077/2. |
2022 |
|
|
20220032 | Reportability/Histology--Testis: Is micropapillary serous borderline tumor reportable? Pathology states Testis (C621) radical orchiectomy: Micropapillary serous borderline tumor. |
We consulted an expert genitourinary pathologist who advises that micropapillary serous borderline tumor of the testis is reportable. He states "it is the same neoplasm as in the ovary. It arises from tissue (tunica vaginalis) surrounding the testis so is a paratesticular neoplasm." Please note: not all borderline tumors are reportable and this diagnosis is an exception because it is assigned /2 in ICD-O-3.2. It is reportable for cases diagnosed Jan 1, 2021 and later. |
2022 | |
|
|
20220036 | Solid Tumors Rules/Histology--Head and Neck: How is histology coded for head and neck primaries when a tumor is diagnosed as an invasive squamous cell carcinoma with multiple subtypes? See Discussion. |
Example Case 1: 2022 mobile tongue tumor biopsy shows squamous cell carcinoma, basaloid non-keratinizing type. Example Case 2: 2022 base of tongue mass biopsy shows squamous cell carcinoma, basaloid non-keratinizing type, p16 positive. Table 5, Note 2 (Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions) instructs us to code non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma which is p16 positive to 8085 (Squamous cell carcinoma HPV-positive), ignoring the non-keratinizing subtype. Does p16 or HPV positivity also take priority over multiple subtypes (basaloid non-keratinizing type)? |
Assign 8083/3, basaloid squamous cell carcinoma (BSCC), in both examples. It is more important to capture the variant than to code 8085 or 8086. WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors, 5th ed., states that BSCC is a distinctive form of SCC, characterized by prominent basaloid morphology, squamous differentiation, and aggressive behavior. Some primary sites capture p16 status as a Site Specific Data Item; you may record the p16 results when that is the case. |
2022 |
An official website of the United States government
