Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20210058 | Multiple Primaries/Histology--Lymphoma: What is the histology code and how many primaries are there based on a gastrohepatic lymph node biopsy that shows: Nodular lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin lymphoma with T-cell/histiocyte rich diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)-like transformation. If two primaries, what is the diagnosis date for each primary? See Discussion. |
4/28/21 PET: There is extensive widespread/multifocal hypermetabolic uptake within lymph nodes, skeleton, and spleen, compatible with malignancy. Differential diagnosis includes lymphoma and metastatic disease of indeterminate primary, with lymphoma favored. 4/28/21 Right retroperitoneal lymph node, needle core biopsy: Large B-cell lymphoma. See comment. Comment: The differential includes T-cell/histiocyte-rich large B-cell lymphoma and diffuse variant of nodular lymphocyte predominant Hodgkin lymphoma. It is challenging to distinguish these two on the needle core biopsy. An excisional biopsy is recommended for a definite diagnosis if clinically appropriate. ADDENDUM: B-Cell Lymphoma, FISH: negative. No rearrangement of MYC, BCL2 and BCL6 and no fusion of MYC and IGH. 5/14/21 Gastrohepatic lymph node, biopsy: Nodular lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin lymphoma (NLPHL) with T-cell/histiocyte rich diffuse large B-cell lymphoma-like transformation. Focal in situ follicular neoplasia. 6/3/21 Medical Oncologist: Biopsy confirms that patient has a nodular lymphocytic Hodgkin lymphoma which has transformed into a T-cell rich DLBCL. This variant of Hodgkin disease is a good prognostic histology which generally behaves indolently, like a low grade lymphoma. |
We consulted with our expert hematopathologist who advised this is a single primary, Hodgkin lymphoma (9659/3). The diagnosis from 5/14/2021 states NLPHL. It also states there is T-cell histiocyte rich large B-cell lymphoma-like transformation. The WHO Classification of Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues demonstrates six different patterns to NLPHL, which are: A) 'classical' nodular, B) serpiginous/interconnected nodular, C) nodular with prominent extra-nodular LP cells, D) T-cell-rich nodular, E) diffuse with a T-cell-rich background, and F) diffuse, B-cell-rich pattern. In this case, they are describing a NLPHL type E (diffuse with a T-cell rich background). The term used is "T-cell histiocyte rich large B-cell lymphoma-LIKE transformation. "Like" as used here means that it is like a transformation; if it was NLPHL transforming to T-cell histiocyte rich large B-cell lymphoma, it would not have the word "like" in the diagnosis. This is a variant of NLPHL and not an actual transformation to another lymphoma. Even though NLPHL can transform to T-cell histiocyte rich large B-cell lymphoma, it is not the case here since the word "like" appears in the diagnosis. We will update the histology in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Database to include these additional patterns. |
2021 |
|
|
20200065 | Tumor Size/Corpus uteri--Endometrium: Is clinical tumor size coded to the endometrial stripe measurement or thickening in the endometrium. See Discussion. |
Example: Pelvic ultrasound-19 mm thickened endometrium; bilateral ovaries unremarkable. Case was coded to 19 mm for clinical tumor size. I have always been taught NOT to use "endometrial stripe" or "thickening" measurements for clinical size. Can you confirm. Also, is this noted on any of the SEER resources such as SEER training or in the SEER tumor size guidelines? I wanted to point them out to a reference if it is available. |
We consulted with an expert GYN pathologist. He confirmed our thinking that endometrial stripe or thickening does not represent clinical tumor size. We will add this to a future edition of the SEER manual for reference. |
2020 |
|
|
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 | |
|
|
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 | |
|
|
20190090 | Update to current manual/Extent of Disease/Summary Stage 2018--Fallopian Tube: How are behavior, EOD Primary Tumor, and Summary Stage 2018 coded for a diagnosis of serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC) of the fallopian tube? See Discussion. |
The 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology Updates table lists serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (C57.0) with a behavior code of 2. The EOD Primary Tumor schema for Fallopian Tube shows STIC has an extension code of 100. It also maps code 100 to Summary Stage 2018 L (localized). Summary Stage 2018 for fallopian tube only documents that intraepithelial tumors are summary stage 0 (in situ). |
We are aware of the issue and have been in discussion with standard setters (SEER, NPCR, AJCC, and NAACCR). At this time, we recommend coding: Histology: 8441/2 Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor: 000 Summary Stage: 0 AJCC Clin/Path T would be 88, since all in situ lesions are not applicable. Edits will not allow you to have a 8441/2 with a T1. Also, EOD is not currently set up to derive the correct T value, unless you code 100. The change to address the issue will take effect in 2021. |
2019 |
|
|
20160050 | Reportability--Appendix: Is a mucinous cystic neoplasm with high grade dysplasia of the appendix reportable? See discussion. |
The language appears similar to the mucinous cystic neoplasm of the pancreas with high grade dysplasia (8470/2), which was clarified to be reportable in 2014. |
WHO does not list MCN as a histology for the appendix. This case should be clarified with the pathologist.
For pancreas specifically, the term "mucinous cystic neoplasm (MCN) with high grade dysplasia" replaced the term "mucinous cystadenocarcinoma, noninvasive" according to WHO. MCN with high grade dysplasia of the pancreas is reportable because it is used in place of the now obsolete terminology. If we did not make the new terminology reportable, trends over time could be affected.
|
2016 |
|
|
20160064 | Behavior--Prostate: What is the correct behavior of intraductal carcinoma from a prostate biopsy with a Gleason score 4+4=8. While highly aggressive, but not suggestive of invasion, coding behavior as /2 seems inappropriate. |
WHO classifies intraductal carcinoma of the prostate 8500/2. According to WHO, "the hallmark of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate is a proliferation of prostate carcinoma cells that is within and may significantly expand the native prostatic ducts and acini, with the basal cell layer at least partially preserved." Further, differentiation between intraductal carcinoma and infiltrating high-grade carcinoma of the prostate may require basal cell stains. Under Prognosis, WHO states: " intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on prostate biopsies is often associated with high-grade cancer (with a mean Gleason score of 8) ." So while it may seem counter-intuitive, assign behavior code /2 when the diagnosis is intraductal carcinoma of the prostate. |
2016 | |
|
|
20150061 | Reportability--Vulva: Is this reportable? We have begun to see the following diagnosis on biopsies of the vulva with the statement below. The diagnosis is being given as simply VULVAR INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA, no grade is noted. See discussion. |
The note explains: The International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD) in 2004 revised its classification of VIN by eliminating VIN 1 and combining VIN 2 and VIN 3 into a single category (see table below). Classification of VIN (usual type) ISSVD [International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease]1986 classification 2004 classification VIN 1 VIN2 VIN3 VIN Note: VIN 2 and VIN 3 combined into single [non-graded] category, VIN Reference: Scurry J and Wilkinson EJ. Review of terminology of precursors of vulvar squamous cell carcinoma. Journal of lower genital tract disease, 2006; 10(3): 161-169 |
Vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia with no grade specified is not reportable. Reportability instructions have not changed. See page 11 in the SEER manual, http://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2015/SPCSM_2015_maindoc.pdf |
2015 |
|
|
20120034 | Primary site--Brain and CNS: How is the primary site to be coded if a clinician used an MRI to diagnose a left cerebellar venous angioma? See Discussion. |
According to the WHO Classification of Brain/CNS Tumors, code 9122/0 (venous angioma) does not appear under tumors of the cerebellum (C716). |
Venous angiomas (9122/0) are not reportable wherever they arise. The primary site for venous angioma arising in the cerebellum is C490. The combination of 9122/0 and C490 is not reportable. Venous angioma is a venous abnormality, currently referred to as a developmental venous anomaly (DVA). |
2012 |
|
|
20130194 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are blood vessel tumors arising in CNS sites reportable? See Discussion. |
Previous instructions from the CDC (Cancer - Collection and Coding Clarification for CNS Tumors - NPCR) stated that non-malignant blood vessel tumors in CNS sites are reportable and should be coded to the CNS site in which they arose. SINQ 20081113 also states that a blood vessel tumor, cavernoma/cavernous hemangioma, in the brain is reportable. However, SINQ 20120034 contradicts this previous answer stating the site should be coded to C490 [blood vessel] for a blood vessel tumor (venous angioma) in the brain. If blood vessel tumors arising in a CNS site are no longer reportable, please specify the site/histology codes for these non-reportable tumors and when this change took place. |
Vascular tumors of the CNS are reportable when they arise in the dura or parenchyma of the CNS and should be coded accordingly. The instructions in the CDC book regarding primary site coding are not the most current instructions.SEER assumed responsibility for brain and CNS reporting instructions in 2007. The tumor in SINQ 20120034 is not reportable because it arises in a blood vessel. The cavernous hemangioma in SINQ 20081113 is reportable because the primary site is the white matter of the cerebral cortex. |
2013 |
An official website of the United States government
