Behavior/Date of Diagnosis--Lung: If the term "Pancoast tumor, NOS" is malignant by definition, should the date of diagnosis be coded to the date of the clinical diagnosis when the clinical diagnosis is made prior to the histologic confirmation of the malignancy?
Yes, Pancoast tumor is by definition malignant. It is defined as a lung cancer in the uppermost segment of the lung that directly invades into the brachial plexus (nerve bundles) of the neck, causing pain. If a Pancoast tumor was identified on imaging prior to the biopsy, the date of diagnosis should be linked to the Pancoast tumor report.
EOD-Extension--Sarcoma: How is this field coded for a soft tissue sarcoma that involves the overlying skin?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: It depends on the location of the soft tissue sarcoma. If the tumor is very superficial, code EOD-Extension to 60 [Adjacent organs/structures]. However, if the soft tissue sarcoma is between muscles or "deep" according to the AJCC definition, then it would have to grow through the superficial fascia to get to the skin. In this case code EOD-Extension to 80 [Further contiguous extension].
Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology "mucinous carcinoma with Paget disease"?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8480/3 [mucinous carcinoma]. This answer assumes the patient presented with a single tumor. There is no combination code that includes these two entities. According to the rules for Coding Complex Morphologic Diagnoses, it would appear that the case should be coded to 8540 [Paget disease] because it is the higher code. However, this combination of histologies represents an exception to that rule. The prognosis for mucinous carcinoma is worse than the prognosis for Paget disease. As a result, it would be more appropriate to the histology to mucinous carcinoma.
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.
MP/H Rules/Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Colon: Please clarify how to code diagnostic confirmation when there is no mention of a malignant polyp in the pathology report of a familial polyposis case given this statement: "Even if you have only one malignant polyp it is a single primary if there is a diagnosis of FAP. Even if there is no mention of a malignant polyp, if there is a diagnosis of FAP you will use this rule."
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
In the very unlikely event of a FAP diagnosis with no malignancy, the case would not be reportable.
When FAP is diagnosed along with a colon malignancy, it is presumed that the malignancy originated in one of the numerous polyps, even if this is not explicitly stated. Use rule M3 for any colon malignancy (in a polyp, frank, or not stated) with a diagnosis of FAP and abstract as a single primary.
Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology if the final diagnosis between an electron microscopy report and the immunocytochemistry (ICC) differs and both histologies are specific (e.g., one report states papillary carcinoma and the other states squamous cell carcinoma)?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
There is no established hierarchy between electron microscopy and ICC findings. Contact the pathologists involved in these types of cases to determine the final histologic diagnosis.
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Kidney/Bladder/Renal Pelvis: Would transitional cell carcinoma of the left renal pelvis, diagnosed two years after a diagnosis of invasive bladder cancer, be a second primary when the discharge is "recurrent transitional cell carcinoma, left kidney"?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
This is an example of the term "recurrent" being used loosely to refer to another primary in the urinary tract. It is highly unlikely that a bladder tumor would metastasize to the kidney. Much more likely is the field defect or regional breakdown of the urothelial tissue that lines the tract from the renal pelvis to the urethra. Furthermore, bladder tumors don't spread retrograde to the kidney. Code as two primaries.
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.
CS Lymph Nodes/Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery--Prostate: When prostate cancer is an incidental finding at cystoprostatectomy for bladder cancer, is the pelvic lymph node dissection coded for the prostate as well as the bladder?
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.
Yes, the pelvic lymph node dissection is coded as regional lymph node surgery for both primaries and the nodes are counted in collaborative staging for both primaries. The examination of the pelvic lymph nodes is relevant to both the bladder and the prostatic primaries.
Histology/Behavior--Brain and CNS: How should Histology and Behavior be coded for a polymorphous low-grade neuroepithelial tumor of the young (PLNTY) arising in the brain?
Multiple Primaries/Histology (Pre-2007)--Colon: Would one primary be reported when adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp NOS [8210/3] and adenocarcinoma arising in a tubulovillous adenoma [8263/3] were simultaneously diagnosed in the sigmoid colon (first 3-digits of the histology are different)?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code as one primary. Code the Histology field to 8263/3 [Adenocarcinoma in tubulovillous adenoma].
Count as a single primary and code the more specific term when simultaneous lesions are present and one lesion is an "NOS" term and the other is a more specific term. "Polyp" is an NOS term. Adenoma is an associated term, but is more specific (Tubulovillous adenoma is more specific than "polyp").
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.
CS Site Specific Factor/Terminology--Breast: Does the term "focal areas" of in situ carcinoma qualify as "minimal" in situ component when coding SSF6 field (assessment of the invasive and in situ components present) in the CS breast scheme?
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.
Yes, the term "focal areas" of in situ carcinoma describes a minimal in situ component.
An official website of the United States government
Home