Reportability/Histology: Would a histology reading "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix be reportable? Since the word "tumor NOS" and "neoplasm NOS" both code to 8000, I would assume they would be interchangeable but just wanted to verify.
According to SINQ 20130027 & 20140002 a "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" of the appendix IS reportable.
"Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix is reportable. According to the WHO classification of Digestive System Tumors, "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix is synonymous with NET. WHO states on page 13 "The term 'neuroendocrine neoplasm' can be used synonymously with 'neuroendocrine tumor.'"
Neuroendocrine "tumor," or NET G1, is listed in the WHO classification as one of the malignant neoplasms of the appendix.
Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: How should the Surgery of Primary Site field be coded when a patient has a lumpectomy and an additional margin excision during the same procedure? See discussion.
Operative report indicates a wire localized lumpectomy was performed. The pathology report includes a final diagnosis for two specimens as follows:
A) LEFT BREAST, EXCISION: INFILTRATING DUCTAL CARCINOMA
B) LEFT BREAST, NEW DEEP MARGIN, EXCISION: BENIGN BREAST TISSUES AND BENIGN FIBROFATTY SOFT TISSUES; NO EVIDENCE OF NEOPLASIA.
The definition for Breast surgery code 23 is "Reexcision of the biopsy site for gross or microscopic residual disease". There is no indication whether the re-excision has to be a separate procedure or can be during the same procedure as the excisional biopsy (lumpectomy). Some hospital registrars in our region believe code 22 is more appropriate.
Revised Answer
Assign code 22 when a patient has a lumpectomy and an additional margin excision during the same procedure.
According to the CoC, "Re-excision of the margins intraoperatively during same surgical event does not require additional resources; it is still 22. Subsequentre-excision of lumpectomy margins during separate surgical event requires additional resources: anesthesia, op room, and surgical staff; it qualifies for code 23."
Primary site--Bladder: What is the primary site for bladder tumor biopsy: invasive adenocarcinoma, enteric type favor urachal origin, stage III
Based on the information provided, code the primary site to urachus (C677). Primary adenocarcinoma of the bladder accounts for less than 1% of all bladder malignancies. Of these, 20–39% are urachal in origin.
Surgery of Primary Site--Bladder: Is any mention of cautery in the gross description of pathology for a TURBT specimen sufficient to code 22 (excisional biopsy with electrocautery), or does there need to be a statement in the operative report that electrocautery was performed? See discussion.
Often, pathology for TURBT with non-invasive papillary TCC includes a gross description with a variety of cautery descriptions. For example, "received are three cautery roughened gray-pale pink tissue fragments.” However, the operative report is documented as a "TURBT" with no further description of the procedure.
Assign code 22 when cautery is mentioned n the gross description of pathology for a TURBT specimen.
Reportability/Primary Site--Lip: Is a right lower lip (NOS) squamous cell carcinoma reportable when the microscopic description states the tumor arises from the epidermis and extends through the dermis? See discussion.
We are having difficulty determining whether the primary site is lip, NOS (C009) or skin of lip (C440). Usually we look for a statement of “skin” or “mucosa” in the microscopic description if the specimen label is only lip, NOS as instructed by the previous SINQ 20051049. Is a statement of "epidermis" or "dermis" in the microscopic description enough to indicate carcinoma is arising in the skin of the lip (C440) and thus not reportable?
This case is interpreted as skin of lip and not reportable. According to our expert pathologist consultant, the pathologist in this case "is specifically saying "epidermis" and "dermis" and I would have to think it is skin, and thus not reportable."
Reportability--Breast: Is an inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor of the breast with metastasis to the lung reportable?
Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor of the breast with metastasis to the lung is reportable. Metastasis to the lung from the breast tumor indicates that the breast tumor is malignant. All malignant neoplasms are reportable.
MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: Does lung MP/H Rule M6 apply to synchronous tumors only, metachronous tumors only, or both? See discussion.
How many primaries should be reported when a patient has a history of RLL adenocarcinoma diagnosed on 10/8/2009 followed by diagnoses of LUL adenocarcinoma on 10/5/2012 and a RUL adenocarcinoma on 3/26/2014?
We applied Rule M6 to the 10/5/2012 diagnosis of LUL adenocarcinoma and reported an additional primary. However, we are unsure how to apply the MP/H rules for the 3/26/2014 RUL adenocarcinoma.
Should we apply Rule M8 because the RUL adenocarcinoma was diagnosed more than 3 years after the original RLL adenocarcinoma and then apply M6 because the RUL and LUL indicate a single tumor in each lung (resulting in a third primary); or does Rule M12 apply because there has been more than a single tumor in each lung (no new primary)?
Assuming each of the three diagnoses is a single tumor and there are no other tumors in either lung, abstract two primaries: 1 in the RLL diagnosed on 10/8/2009 and 1 in the LUL diagnosed on 10/5/2012. Do not abstract the 3/26/2014 diagnosis as a new primary.
Rule M6 applies to the 2009 and 2012 diagnoses. Rule M12 applies to the 2012 and 2014 diagnoses. Do not compare the 2014 diagnosis to the 2009 diagnosis. Always compare the latest diagnosis to the most recent previous diagnosis in cases like this.
Behavior--Breast: Is behavior for encapsulated papillary carcinoma (EPC) of the breast coded as noninvasive or invasive?
The pathologist has the final say on behavior. Code behavior based on the pathologist's final diagnosis. See Rule F in ICD-O-3.
According the WHO Classification of Breast Tumors, encapsulated papillary carcinoma of the breast is in situ, /2. Encapsulated papillary carcinoma with invasion is assigned /3. WHO describes "frank invasive carcinoma" for this histology as "neoplastic epithelial elements infiltrate beyond the fibrous capsule of encapsulated papillary carcinomas." WHO cautions that true infiltration should be "differentiated from entrapment of neoplastic epithelial cells in the fibrous capsule and from epithelial displacement into the biopsy site, which is frequently encountered following needle-core procedures of papillary lesions."
Histology--Breast: Please confirm the morphology code for a diagnosis of "encapsulated papillary carcinoma" of the breast. Several articles on the internet lead me to believe it is the same as an intracystic carcinoma, code 8504/2 (our case shows no evidence of invasion).
You are correct in coding 8504/2 for this case. Per the 4th Edition WHO Tumors of the Breast, encapsulated papillary carcinoma (EPC) of the breast is synonymous with intracystic or encysted papillary carcinoma. It is a variant of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).
MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: Is the diagnosis of Paget disease two years after a diagnosis of infiltrating duct carcinoma of the same breast a new primary? See discussion.
A patient was diagnosed and treated in 2010 for infiltrating duct carcinoma of the left breast. There was no mention of Paget disease. Then in 2012, the same patient was diagnosed with Paget disease of the nipple of the left breast. Rule M9 seems to apply; so this is the same primary, correct? And the information about the Paget disease is simply never captured, correct?
Yes, Rule M9 makes this a single primary. You could revise the original histology code to 8541/3 on the assumption that Paget was present at the original diagnosis, but not yet identified.
An official website of the United States government
Home