Reportability--Breast: Is mammary fibromatosis reportable and if so, what histology code is assigned? See discussion.
The pathologist completed a CAP protocol using soft tissue. Pathology revealed a 2.5 cm tumor with invasion of skeletal muscle with deep margins positive for tumor.
Mammary fibromatosis is not reportable. The WHO classification for breast tumors assigns mammary fibromatosis a behavior code of /1. According to WHO, mammary fibromatosis "is a locally infiltrative lesion without metastatic potential…"
Reportability--Carcinoid: Is a diagnosis of carcinoid heart disease, based solely on clinical information and no pathology, reportable?
Carcinoid heart disease is not reportable but this diagnosis indicates that the patient likely has a carcinoid tumor which may be reportable. Obtain further information.
Reportability--Colon: Is a polypectomy that is suspicious for invasive adenocarcinoma followed by a partial colectomy with no residual neoplasm reportable? See Discussion.
08/28/2009 Cecum biopsy showed an adenomatous polyp with focal areas suspicious for invasive adenocarcinoma.
SINQ 20071060 states a suspicious biopsy that is disproven by a subsequent surgical procedure is not reportable. That does not seem to apply in this case because the patient had a suspicious finding on a surgical procedure (polypectomy), followed by a second surgical procedure that was negative. Is it possible that the polypectomy removed the entire tumor and the suspicious diagnosis should be reported?
This case is reportable.
It is possible that the polypectomy removed the entire tumor. Invasive carcinoma in a polyp does not mean that is has invaded the stalk of the polyp. If the stalk is not invaded, all of the cancer may have been removed by a polypectomy.
Reportability--Colon: Would a carcinoid tumor, NOS, of the appendix with perineural or angiolymphatic invasion be reportable if there is no mention of malignancy in the pathology report?
Carcinoid, NOS, of the appendix diagnosed in 2015 or later is reportable.
For cases diagnosed prior to 2015
Carcinoids of the appendix are reportable when they meet any of the following conditions.
The pathologist designates the carcinoid as malignant
Regional lymph nodes are positive for MALIGNANT carcinoid (not reportable if lymph nodes are reported to be involved with benign carcinoid disease)
There are discontinuous metastatic implants or involvement
Note that the implants/involvement must be designated as malignant. Many benign tumors will spawn implants that are also benign. If implants are benign, this is not a reportable tumor.
Reportability--Corpus uteri: Is endometrial atypical complex hyperplasia/borderline endometrial adenocarcinoma (FIGO 1), (mucinous type), (no invasion of myometrium) reportable?
Do not report this case based on the information provided. The actual diagnosis is somewhere between atypical hyerpplasia and carcinoma in situ. Do not report until/unless a more definitively reportable diagnosis is made.
Reportability--Corpus uteri: Is smooth muscle tumor with uncertain malignant potential (STUMP) reportable? See Discussion.
Spindled cell lesion of smooth muscle origin (desmin and SMA are positive, CD34, S100, pancytokeratin, Pax8, MDM2 and CDK4 are negative). Many of the cells have hyperchromatic, bizarre-shaped nuclei. Mitotic activity is inconspicuous. There are no areas of necrosis. The overall findings in this biopsy is best classified as a "STUMP"; however, a leiomyosarcoma cannot be excluded.
STUMP (smooth muscle tumor of uncertain malignant potential) is not reportable. According to the WHO classification of uterine corpus tumors, the behavior code for STUMP is /1.
Reportability--Esophagus/Stomach: Are the terms "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" synonymous with in situ for tumors in the gastrointestinal tract? See Discussion.
SINQ 20000245 states that high grade or severe dysplasia in not synonymous with in situ disease. However, per page 109 in the 7th edition of AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, high grade dysplasia is the only term listed under Tis. A note on that page explains that "high-grade dysplasia includes all noninvasive neoplastic epithelia that was formerly called carcinoma in situ, a diagnosis that is no longer used for columnar mucosae anywhere in the gastrointestinal tract."
There has been considerable pressure from registrars at larger reporting facilities to re-address this issue. The pathologists at these facilities state that they are correctly documenting the presence of in situ disease when they use the term high grade dysplasia for gastrointestinal tract tumors. In their opinion, it is not necessary to add the term in situ in parentheses following the use of the term high grade dysplasia to clarify the behavior of these lesions in their pathology reports. If the term "carcinoma in situ" is no longer being used by many pathologists for sites in the gastrointestinal tract, won't this lead to underreporting of in situ disease for these sites unless the reportability guidelines are changed?
For cancer reporting purposes, the terms "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" are not synonymous with in situ for tumors in the gastrointestinal tract. These cases are only reportable when the pathologist documents carcinoma in situ or intraepithelial neoplasia grade III, or when the registry includes in their policies and procedures the pathologist's statement that he/she uses HGD to mean the same as CIS.
Reportability laws are customarily based on ICD-O. Because "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" are not designated as in situ in the ICD-O, there is no legal authority to report these cases in most states.
Reportability--Eye: Is conjunctival intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN III) from an excision of the left eye conjunctiva reportable?
Conjuctival intraepithelial neoplasia grade III (CIN III) is reportable. Intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III, is listed in ICD-O-3 as /2. It is reportable for sites other than skin.
Reportability--Fallopian Tube: Is a diagnosis of serous tubal intraepithelial neoplasm (neoplasia) (STIN) equivalent to serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC)? Does the designation of high or low grade have any effect on potential reportability? See Discussion.
Patient has left salpingo-oophorectomy showing fallopian tube with focal high grade serous intraepithelial neoplasm.
In reviewing some journal articles, the term STIN is being used to describe both STIC and serous tubal intraepithelial lesion (STIL). We will likely continue to see this term used, so it would be nice to have some clarity.
Serous tubal intraepithelial neoplasm (neoplasia) (STIN) is not equivalent to serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC). Report STIN only when stated to be high grade. STIC is reportable. Do not report STIL.
According to our expert pathologist consultant, STIL and STIN are broad descriptive terms that reflect proliferation of epithelial cells with varying degrees of atypia, with the most developed, STIC, reflecting convincing neoplastic change.
An official website of the United States government
Home