System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 08/01/2025 20:46 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20190107

First Course Treatment/Chemotherapy--Colon: Is maintenance therapy coded as part of the first course of treatment or as part of subsequent course of treatment?

Patient was diagnosed with Stage IV colon cancer (liver metstasiss) and started on Folfox with Avastin. The medical oncologist decided to continue maintenance treatment with Xeloda and Avastin.

Per Colon NCCN Guidelines Version 3.2019, interest in the use of maintenance therapy approach after first-line treatment of unresectable, metastatic colorectal cancer is growing. In general, this approach involves intensive first-line therapy, followed by less intensive therapy until progression in patients with good response to initial treatment.

Colon Therapy

5/1/18 Colonoscopy biopsy: mod diff colon adenoca, MMR proficient, BRAF wild type

5/5/18 Liver biopsy: mets from colon cancer

6/18/18 " 11/20/2018 Med Onc: started 12 cycles Chemo - Folfox (Fluorouracil, leucovorin, Oxaliplatin) with Avastin

11/28/18 CT Pelvis: continued improvement in the liver mets; no residual tumor involving colon; no new mas or adenopathy in the chest, abdomen or pelvis

12/02/18 Med Onc follow up: Pt had tremendous response to chemotherapy and Avastin, cancer is not curable. Is amenable to maintenance therapy with Xeloda and Avastin; also amenable to descending colectomy in the future

1/7/19 Med Onc: starting maintenance treatment Xeloda + Avastin.

Code the maintenance therapy as first course when the maintenance therapy includes at least one of the drugs from the original treatment. Use text fields to record the details.

 2019
20041043 First Course Cancer-Directed Treatment--Bladder: How should Mitomycin-C instillation for bladder cancer be coded?

Code the instillation of Mitomycin-C into the bladder for a bladder primary in both the Chemotherapy and Surgery to Primary Site fields. Code the Chemotherapy field to 02 [Single-agent chemotherapy administered as first course therapy]. Mitomycin-C is listed in SEER book 8 as a chemotherapeutic drug, specifically an alkylating agent.

Also, code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 15 [intravesical therapy]. Code the surgical procedure as well as the type of drug (chemotherapy in this case).

 2004
20021066 Histology: How do we code this field when a less representative specimen has a more specific morphology? See discussion. Example: Biopsy revealed endometrioid adenocarcinoma and the resection demonstrated adenocarcinoma, NOS. Do we code histology per the most representative sample, or to the more specific morphology?

Code the histology using the pathology report from the most representative specimen, even if that histology is less specific.

For the case example above, code 8140 [adenocarcinoma, NOS].

The rationale is that a diagnosis from a smaller specimen will be less accurate and less representative of the true histology compared to a larger tumor specimen.

 2002
20170001

MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney: How is the histology coded and what rule(s) apply to the classification of succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma? See Discussion.

Partial nephrectomy showed carcinoma, histologic type: succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma. This is not a term in the ICD-O, and is not a histology covered in the Kidney MPH rules. However, a recent web search indicates this is a specific type of RCC that was added to the 2016 WHO classification of RCC (per abstract: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27179267) and makes up 0.05-0.2% of RCC cases (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4229399/).

Code the histology to renal cell carcinoma, NOS (8312/3). While WHO lists succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma in the latest edition, no specific histology code is provided. MP/H Rule H10 applies since only one histology type is provided, though no code is listed.

 2017
20130149 MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: What is the histology code for a testis primary with embryonal carcinoma (70%), yolk sac tumor (30%), and a focus of seminoma (<1%)? See Discussion.

The right orchiectomy specimen showed a mixed histology tumor. The retroperitoneal lymph nodes showed teratoma, NOS only. Does the presence of teratoma in the lymph nodes change the histology coding?

The MP/H Rules for Other Sites, Table 2 (Mixed and Combination Codes) does not include the combination of embryonal carcinoma, yolk sac tumor and seminoma. SINQ 20110013 does state the combination of embryonal carcinoma and yolk sac tumor should be coded to histology 9065/3 [germ cell tumor, nonseminomatous]. In this case, is the focus of seminoma comprising <1% included when coding the histology? If the seminoma is included, Table 2 still does not address this combination.

Code the histology to mixed germ cell tumor [9085/3] per Rule H16; code the appropriate combination/mixed code when there are multiple specific histologies.

According to the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Male Genital Organs, tumors of more than one histologic type (mixed forms) can occur in any combination of various germ cell histologies including embryonal, yolk sac, teratoma, and choriocarcinoma. Mixed teratoma and seminoma is included under histology code 9085/3 [mixed germ cell tumor] in the ICD-O-3. The revised MP/H rules will expand on these mixed testicular histologies.

Priority for coding histology is using the diagnosis from the primary site (when possible) over the histology from a metastatic site. The presence of teratoma, NOS in the retroperitoneal lymph nodes does not change the histology code.

2013
20120030

MP/H Rules/Histology- -Melanoma: What is the correct histology code if the final diagnosis for an excisional biopsy specimen is reported as "malignant melanoma, superficial spreading type" but the under the "cell type" section in the CAP protocol layout of the pathology report it lists "cell type: epithelioid"? See Discussion.

The MP/H rules do not address the concept of "cell type" for melanomas when the pathologist uses the CAP protocol to report findings and the cell type listed in that section of the report differs from the specific cell type mentioned in the final diagnosis. Does a case have two specific cell types when the final diagnosis and the "cell type" sections of a single pathology report indicate two more specific melanoma histologies?

Pre-2007 SINQ entries indicate the cell type should be coded. However, if it differs from the specific cell type listed in the final diagnosis does it matter? Do the MP/H rules still take the cell type into account?

Code the histology to malignant melanoma, superficial spreading type [8743/3] based on the final diagnosis. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a melanoma primary, use the Melanoma Histology rules to determine the histology code because there are site specific rules for cutaneous melanomas.

Start at Rule H1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order from Rule H1 to Rule H10. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the applicable Module. Code the more specific histologic term when the diagnosis is melanoma, NOS [8720] with a single specific type (i.e., superficial spreading) mentioned in the final diagnosis.

The final diagnosis takes precedence over the CAP protocol. The CAP protocol may be used when it provides additional or noncontradictory information, but that does not apply in this case.

 2012
20130170

MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What is the histology code for "invasive carcinoma of the breast, no special type" as the final diagnosis on a pathology report? See Discussion.

Recently pathology reports for breast primaries are no longer listing invasive ductal carcinoma as the histology on many cases if the treating physician calls the cancer an invasive ductal carcinoma. The pathology report (final diagnosis and synopsis) state this is invasive carcinoma, no special type.

Upon inquiry to the pathology department, the response received stated, In 2012, the WHO got rid of ductal carcinoma as a specific type. So what would have been called Invasive ductal carcinoma, Not Otherwise Specified (NOS), is now being called Invasive carcinoma, No Special Type (NST). In the new WHO classification, lobular, tubular, cribriform, mucinous, etc. are the special types. But ductal is gone.

Is this a change in terminology? Should these cases be coded as 8500/3 [ductal carcinoma, NOS] or 8010/3 [carcinoma, NOS]?

Code the histology to ductal carcinoma, NOS [8500/3] for a pathology report with a final diagnosis of "invasive carcinoma, no special type." Do not code the histology to carcinoma, NOS [8010/3].

The 4th Edition of the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Breast refers to invasive ductal carcinoma as invasive carcinoma, no special type. The ICD-O-3 code remains the same as invasive duct carcinoma [8500/3]. The next revision to the MP/H Solid Tumor Rules will clarify this issue.

2013
20120018 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded if a lumpectomy reveals multifocal ductal carcinoma in situ spanning an area of 0.9-1.2 cm with close margins and a subsequent mastectomy reveals only a single focus of lobular carcinoma in situ measuring 0.2 cm in the UOQ, remote from all surgical margins? See Discussion. Does the general instruction apply in this case that indicates the histology is coded from the most representative tumor specimen resulting in the histology coded to 8500/2 [DCIS]? Or is the histology coded to 8522/2 [duct and lobular carcinoma in situ] per Rule H28 because there is any combination of lobular [8520] and duct carcinoma [8500]?

Code the histology to duct and lobular carcinoma in situ [8522/2].

For cases diagnosed 2007 and later, the steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Go to the Breast MP rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS Module Rule M4 because the patient had multiple foci of DCIS and a separate, single focus of LCIS. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the applicable Module. Tumors that are lobular and duct are a single primary.

Go to the Breast Histology rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS ABSTRACTED AS A SINGLE PRIMARY Module Rule H20 because the patient has multiple foci of DCIS and LCIS. Code the histology as 8522/2 [duct and lobular carcinoma in situ] when there is any combination of lobular [8520] and duct carcinoma.

The DCIS and LCIS are separate tumors. The DCIS was removed by the lumpectomy and the LCIS by the mastectomy. The most representative specimen for the DCIS is the lumpectomy. The most representative specimen for the LCIS is the mastectomy. Both pathology reports must be used in this case to determine the histology.

2012
20180107

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: If the pathology states non-small cell carcinoma of the lung (NSCLC), consistent with squamous cell carcinoma, is the code non-small cell carcinoma according to the Solid Tumor Rules? The Medical Oncologist states that the tumor is a squamous cell carcinoma. In these instances would you code the squamous cell carcinoma since you have a definite physician statement?

Code the histology to SCC 8070/3.

Based on registrar feedback on the NSCLC rule, we added a rule that specifically addresses when ambiguous terminology can be used to code histology other than NSCLC. The lung rules were update 10/12/2018 so please make sure you are using the currently posted rules. The new rule is: Rule H3-Code the specific histology when the diagnosis is non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) consistent with (or any other ambiguous term) a specific carcinoma (such as adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, etc.) when:

* Clinically confirmed by a physician (attending, pathologist, oncologist, pulmonologist, etc.)

* Patient is treated for the histology described by an ambiguous term

* The case is accessioned (added to your database) based on ambiguous terminology and no other histology information is available/documented

Example 1: The pathology diagnosis is NSCLC consistent with adenocarcinoma. The oncology consult says the patient has adenocarcinoma of the right lung. This is clinical confirmation of the diagnosis, code adenocarcinoma.

Your case meets the criteria in bullet 1.

 2018
20100098 Primary site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are these fields coded for a 2008 diagnosis of small B cell leukemia, most consistent with mantle cell leukemia that only involved the bone marrow? See Discussion. A bone marrow biopsy was done on 6/18/2008 and showed only small B cell leukemia, most consistent with mantle cell leukemia. ICD-O-3 does not list a histology code for small B cell leukemia or mantle cell leukemia.

Code the histology to 9673/3 [mantle cell lymphoma] and the primary site to C421 [bone marrow].

Mantle cell lymphoma can present in a leukemic phase. The only code available is for mantle cell lymphoma and the only primary site that could be coded would be bone marrow.

2010