Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20230032 | Reportability/Histology--Thyroid: Is a diagnosis of papillary carcinoma, follicular variant, encapsulated/well demarcated, non-invasive reportable? See Discussion. |
The final diagnosis for a left thyroid lobectomy was Papillary thyroid microcarcinoma, further stated to be Histologic Type: Papillary carcinoma, follicular variant, encapsulated/well demarcated, non-invasive. The diagnosis comment states there is a small follicular pattern papillary microcarcinoma. Is the designation of “non-invasive” for this papillary follicular tumor equivalent to a non-reportable diagnosis of Non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP), 8349/1? Or should this be accessioned as either a reportable in situ (non-invasive) papillary follicular thyroid carcinoma or a papillary microcarcinoma per the diagnosis comment? |
Your case is equivalent to encapsulated follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma, non-invasive (non-invasive EFVPTC) and is not reportable for cases diagnosed in 2021 or later even though it says "carcinoma." That is because the WHO assigned a behavior code of /1 to this entity (8349/1). NIFTP is assigned to the same histology and behavior code. |
2023 |
|
|
20230047 | Reportability/Histology--Head & Neck: Is a 2023 mandibular biopsy showing “severe squamous dysplasia with microscopic focus suspicious for superficial invasion” reportable? See Discussion. |
Patient had a mandibular mucosal lesion resected in June of 2023, with a diagnosis of “atypical squamous proliferation” and case was forwarded to an expert in oral pathology for best classification. Subsequent slide review final diagnosis was “moderate to severe squamous dysplasia.” That slide review diagnosis goes on to state “microscopic focus suspicious for superficial invasion.” Currently there is no ICD-O code for severe squamous dysplasia, however it is unclear if this terminology is equivalent to high grade squamous dysplasia (histology code 8077/2). |
Report as squamous cell carcinoma (8070/3) on the basis of “microscopic focus suspicious for superficial invasion.” "Severe dysplasia" is equivalent to "high grade dysplasia" in the Head and neck. As such, "severe squamous dysplasia" would be coded to 8077/2. However, in combination with the statement of "with microscopic focus suspicious for superficial invasion,” report as squamous cell carcinoma (8070/3) based on “microscopic focus suspicious for superficial invasion.” The 2023 SEER Manual instructs us to code the behavior as malignant (/3) if any portion of the primary tumor is invasive no matter how limited, i.e., microinvasion. Use text fields to record the details. |
2023 |
|
|
20230066 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Lung: Table 3 in Lung Solid Tumor Rules, 2023 Update, lists neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS 8246 as a specific subtype/variant for small cell carcinoma 8041/3. Should the table be updated? See Discussion. |
Small cell carcinoma is a specific type of neuroendocrine carcinoma for the lung. However, Table 3 lists neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS as the more specific subtype/variant in Column 3. Using Lung Solid Tumor Rules, Rule H6, a diagnosis of poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (small cell carcinoma)” would be coded as 8246, instead of 8041, because there are two histologies under consideration (an NOS and a subtype/variant in Table 3), and the rule tells us to code the subtype/variant. However, small cell carcinoma is more specific than the NOS diagnosis (neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS). Should Table 3 be updated to reflect which histology is the NOS and which is the more specific? |
The Solid Tumor Rules for Lung have been updated for 2024. The row for Small cell carcinoma 8041/3 has been deleted and new separate rows have been added for Neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) 8246 and Neuroendocrine tumor, NOS (NET) 8240. This change is based on the WHO Classification of Thoracic Tumors, 5th edition, and current concepts. In addition, Table 3 now reflects that Small cell carcinoma/small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma 8041 (located in Column 3) is a subtype/variant of neuroendocrine carcinoma, NEC 8246 (Column 1). As a result, application of Rule H6 to a diagnosis of poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (small cell carcinoma)” would be coded as 8041, instead of 8246. Please note: the 2024 updates may be used for cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2024 unless otherwise noted in the rules. |
2023 |
|
|
20230026 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Prostate: How many primaries should be abstracted, and which M rule applies when a patient is diagnosed with intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on biopsy followed by invasive adenocarcinoma on radical prostatectomy more than 60 days later? See Discussion. |
Example: A prostate core biopsy showed intraductal carcinoma in 09/2022, which is an in situ tumor. A core biopsy again showed intraductal carcinoma in 12/2022. The subsequent radical prostatectomy in 04/2023, revealed multiple foci of invasive prostate adenocarcinoma with extensive intraductal carcinoma. Per Solid Tumor Rules, Other Sites, Rule M3, acinar adenocarcinoma of the prostate is always a single primary. Note 4, this rule applies to subtype variants of acinar adenocarcinoma listed in Table 3, which has intraductal/ductal as a variant subtype of acinar adenocarcinoma. Does rule M3 apply to incidence cases (an invasive tumor following an in situ tumor)? |
Rule M1 applies because we don't know if there are separate tumors or separate foci within a single tumor. This is a single primary coded 8140/3. The prostate rules will be reviewed for an addition to cover this situation. |
2023 |
|
|
20230011 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Prostate: How many primaries are accessioned when a 2023 liver biopsy diagnosed metastatic small cell carcinoma (SmCC) of the prostate following a 2018 radical prostatectomy treated diagnosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma? See Discussion. |
SINQs 20190083, 20180088, and 20130221 all indicate diagnoses of prostate adenocarcinoma, followed by a diagnosis of metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate are separate primaries because these are distinctly different histologies. Does this logic still apply for 2023 and later since Rule M4 was added to the Other Sites M Rules? Rule M4 states, “Abstract multiple primaries when the patient has a subsequent small cell carcinoma of the prostate more than 1 year following a diagnosis of acinar adenocarcinoma and/or subtype/variant of acinar adenocarcinoma of prostate.” This patient has a 2018 diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma treated with radical prostatectomy, followed by a 2023 diagnosis of metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate diagnosed on a liver metastasis core biopsy. Rule M4 does not indicate whether it applies to subsequent biopsy confirmed metastatic tumor only. When a diagnosis of small cell carcinoma follows a diagnosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma, it is almost always confirmed in metastatic sites rather than in the primary site. Does the logic in the referenced SINQs above still apply for Rule M4? |
Accession two primaries, adenocarcinoma (8140/3) of the prostate and SmCC (8041/3) of the prostate using Rule M4 of the current Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules. The guidance in the aforementioned SINQ entries still applies with the additional criteria of being diagnosed more than one year following the diagnosis of acinar adenocarcinoma, or subtype, of the prostate as stated in Rule M4 of the updated 2023 rules. Small cell carcinomas of the prostate are often diagnosed on follow-up TURP/biopsies; however, if a patient had a previous radical prostatectomy, the small cell carcinoma would be identified in a metstatic site and would still be a new prostate primary. This includes biopsy confirmed metastatic tumors only. It remains important to capture the two distinct histology types. |
2023 |
|
|
20230025 | Histology--Cervix: Can human papilloma virus (HPV) or p16 testing results from a non-reportable high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL)/cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN 3) pathology report be used to code histology as squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), HPV-positive (8085), if subsequent excision/resection identifies invasive SCC and no further HPV or p16 testing is done on the invasive specimen? See Discussion. |
Example #1: Cervix loop electrocautery excision procedure (LEEP) pathology: Histologic Type: Squamous cell carcinoma, HPV-associated. Histologic Type Comments: High-risk HPV testing on previous Pap test sample reported as positive for high-risk HPV. The prior Pap diagnosis was HSIL only with molecular results positive for high-risk HPV. Example #2: Cervix endocervical curettage and biopsy with CIN 3, p16 diffusely positive. Subsequent LEEP with superficially invasive squamous carcinoma (no HPV or p16 testing done). This was followed by an additional cone excision that was negative for residual malignancy and p16 testing was also negative. |
Use the histology codes SCC, HPV-associated (8085/3) and SCC, HPV-independent (8086/3) only when HPV testing is done on that specimen. Do not use previous HPV tests to code the histology. Code as SCC, NOS (8070/3) in both examples as no HPV testing was performed on the LEEP procedure specimens that identified the SCC. |
2023 |
|
|
20230023 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries—Brain and CNS: How many primaries are accessioned, and which M Rule applies, to a 2018 pituitary adenoma (8272/0) that was partially resected followed by a 2023 resection of residual disease proving pituitary adenoma/pituitary neuroendocrine tumor (8727/3)? See Discussion. |
The patient had residual tumor following the 2018 transsphenoidal resection and underwent an additional surgery after the residual tumor increased in size. Since pituitary adenoma/pituitary neuroendocrine tumor (PitNET) is a new malignant neoplasm for cases diagnosed 2023 and later, should this be a new primary per M5? Or do we disregard the change in behavior and apply rule M2 (single tumor is a single primary) for this scenario? |
This case does not fall into the standard rules. WHO criteria for diagnosing pituitary adenoma have recently changed (per 5th Ed WHO CNS book) and we will likely see more PitNET’ s than pituitary adenomas in the future. PitNET may be invasive or non-invasive but the likelihood of the pathologists providing this information is low. Since we don’t know if the 2018 adenoma was a PitNET based on current criteria or if it transformed to the malignant neoplasm, err on the side of caution and abstract a second primary per M5. This issue is new, and we’ve received numerous questions concerning pathologist reviewing older cases of pituitary adenoma and reclassifying them as PitNET using the new criteria. |
2023 |
|
|
20230064 | Primary Site--Cervix Uteri: When no other information is available regarding the origin of the tumor, can an overlapping cervical adenocarcinoma (C538, 8140/3) be coded to the endocervix (C530) based on the histology? See Discussion. |
Adenocarcinoma is a glandular tumor and the endocervix is generally the origin of glandular tissue for the cervix. However, if the only available information is pathology proving a single tumor overlapping the endocervix and exocervix, can we code the site to C530 instead of C538? Applying the current primary site coding instructions, primary site would be coded as C538 because there is no specific statement of the tumor origin; the primary site coding instructions state the tumor is coded to an overlapping site in the absence of a specific statement of origin and there is no existing SINQ confirming the site can be assumed to be the endocervix based on the histology. |
Code Primary Site as Overlapping lesion of cervix uteri (C538). The 2023 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual Primary Site Coding Instructions for Solid Tumors #4 says to code the last digit of the primary site code to ‘8’ when a single tumor overlaps an adjacent subsite(s) of an organ and the point of origin cannot be determined. This is also supported by the ICD-O-3, 3rd edition, note in the Topography section that states: In categories C00 to C809, neoplasms should be assigned to the subcategory that includes the point of origin of the tumor. A tumor that overlaps the boundaries of two or more subcategories and whose point of origin cannot be determined should be classified to subcategory ‘8.” |
2023 |
|
|
20230080 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: What is the histology code for low grade glioma? See Discussion. |
Patient has a 3 cm tumor in the temporal lobe of the brain. This was noted on MRI 12/2022. The radiologist states this is a low-grade glioma and recommends following with routine scans. No pathology or resection performed or planned. Patient has been followed with imaging every six months with stable disease. Low grade glioma is not currently listed in ICD-O-3.2 or the current Solid Tumor Rules. What histology should be assigned to the case? |
Assign 9380/1 for low grade glioma diagnosed 1/1/2018 forward and for low grade glioma diagnosed prior to 1/1/2018 assign code 8000/1 on the advice of our expert neuropathologists. The site/type combination of C71 _ and 9380/1 will flag histology/site/behavior edits which should be overridden. Low grade glioma is an umbrella term or non-specific diagnosis, primarily seen on radiologic reports such as CT scans and MRIs. Often, the patient is actively followed with scans and surgical intervention delayed or not recommended. WHO Classification of Central Nervous System Tumors, 5th edition, does not recognize this term and indicates that tissue diagnosis (including genetic testing) is needed to provide a specific diagnosis. Since biopsy of these “neoplasms” is not routinely done, a definitive diagnosis is not available. Literature searches yielded conflicting information with some stating low grade gliomas are malignant with an indolent clinical course while others felt they were benign. Until such time as WHO proposes a code for this neoplasm, our expert neuropathologists recommend coding glioma, NOS with borderline behavior 9380/1. |
2023 |
|
|
20230059 | Histology--Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology coded for a diagnosis stated as MDS/AML (myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia) per the international consensus classification (ICC)? See Discussion. |
The final diagnosis on bone marrow biopsy was high grade myeloid stem cell neoplasm, 17% blasts by differential count. The pathologist further states that this could be classified as “MDS with increased blasts (MDS-IB2) per the WHO 5th edition classification, or MDS/AML per the international consensus classification (ICC).” FISH and cytogenetics revealed a loss of 7q, but no other AML-related genetic abnormalities. The physician confirms the patient has MDS/AML. |
Updated Answer July 2024 Code histology as myelodysplastic neoplasm with increased blasts (9983/3) based on the WHO Classification of Hematolymphoid Tumors, 5th edition, Beta version 2. WHO lists MDS with increased blasts-2 (MDS-IB2) as a subtype of 9983/3. Terms coded to 9983/3 include
When differences exist between WHO and ICC, assign the histology based on the WHO Classification. |
2023 |
An official website of the United States government
