EOD-Extension--Pancreas: If the tumor involvement for a case falls between two different regional extension codes, should we code to the lesser of the two codes or should we code extension as unknown? See discussion.
Example 1: CT scan description: Mass in the head of the pancreas. The duodenum is "surrounded" by tumor. Should we code extension to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS] or 99 [unknown] because the extension code could be further than 40. It could be 44 [extension to duodenum].
Example 2: CT scan description: Mass in region of pancreatic head and "root" of superior mesenteric artery consistent with pancreatic cancer. Should we code extension to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS] or 99 [unknown] because the extension code could be further than 40? It could be 54 [extension to major blood vessels].
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
In both examples, code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS]. Choose the lowest of a known possible extension code over an unknown code.
EOD-Extension--Retroperitoneum: Does the presence of "necrotic masses, NOS" in the blood, which are not pathologically evaluated, affect the coding of this field? See Description.
Encapsulated malignant tumor within the retroperitoneum was removed. Surgical report: "In the abdomen, blood had necrotic masses floating freely and encapsulated a 3-4" mass." No pathologic assessment of the necrotic masses is available.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Necrotic masses do not affect the EOD-extension code.
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].
EOD-Extension--Small Intestine: How do we interpret a pathology description of "extending through serosa and forming masses in the periserosal tissue" for a jejunum primary?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 55 [Invasion of/through serosa and adjacent connective tissue]. The description states the tumor extended through the serosa into periserosal tissue. The periserosal tissue in this case refers to adjacent connective tissue lying exterior to the intestinal wall and not the (sub)serosal tissue that lies exterior to the muscularis but inferior to the serosa. Analyze each case individually since pathologists are not consistent when using the above terminology.
EOD-Extension--Stomach: How is this field coded for a stomach primary that has metastases to "Sister Mary Joseph's Nodes?"
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: For a stomach primary, code extension to 70 [Abdominal wall]. Sister Mary Joseph's nodule is a cutaneous umbilical metastasis most commonly from an intra-abdominal primary.
This rare form of cutaneous umbilical metastasis results from spread of tumor within the falciform ligament. The umbilicus is part of the abdominal wall.
EOD-Extension--Stomach: What code is used to represent this field for a stomach primary described as linitis plastica?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 30 [Localized, NOS], unless more information is known about the extent of tumor involvement. Coding the Histology field to 8142/3 [Linitis plastica] and the Size of Primary Tumor field to 998 [Diffuse; widespread; 3/4 or more: Linitis plastica] identifies this diagnosis.
In the EOD-Extension field, the depth of invasion is the important characteristic to be coded. The 10 digit EOD corresponds to the AJCC Staging Manual in which the "T" is based on level of invasion. While a diagnosis of linitis plastica indicates a worse prognosis, it does not define the extent of infiltration. There is no luminal mass with linitis plastica. Instead, the entire gastric wall is thickened by tumor.
EOD-Extension--Urinary Tract: Can the rules used to code bladder extension involving the term "no involvement of muscularis/and no mention of subepithelium/submuscosa" be used to code extension for other urinary tract primaries, such as ureter?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No. The inferred descriptions of noninvasion apply to bladder cases only.
EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Cervix: How do you code these fields when the cancer extended to the pelvic wall and there are periaortic LN metastases?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Assign extension code 65 for contiguous (direct) extension of tumor from the cervix to the pelvic wall. Assign extension code 85 only if the pelvic wall is involved with discontinuous extension from the cervix; i.e., the cervical tumor spread indirectly (through lymph or vascular channels) to the pelvic wall. Code the pelvic wall involvement in the Extension field and the periaortic lymph node involvement in the Lymph Node field. When the computer does the algorithm, it will look at the periaortic lymph nodes and report the summary stage as distant and the TNM stage group as IV because periarotic nodes are M1. Do not code the periaortic lymph nodes in both fields. This is stage IV, distant disease, due to the periaortic lymph node involvement (EOD lymph nodes code 6).
EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Colon: For this primary, under which field are satellite tumor nodules in mesenteric adipose tissue coded? See Description.
Sigmoid colon, low anterior resection: Invasive adenocarcinoma, 5.5 cm greastest dimension, moderately differentiated. Tumor invades through muscularis propria, into mesenteric adipose tissue. No penetration of visceral peritoneum. Proximal, distal, and radial margins free of tumor. Satellite tumor nodule present within mesenteric adipose tissue, 1.5 cm diameter, located 2.8 cm from main bowel wall tumor. Ten lymph nodes identified, with no evidence of metastatic tumor.
Comment: The satellite tumor nodule present within the mesenteric adipose tissue has an infiltrating, irregular contoured appearance and does not appear to represent a previously replaced lymph node. This appears to be a local metastasis with histologic features most commonly associated with venous invasion (see AJCC Cancer Staging Handbook, Sixth Edition, 2002, page 131 for current staging terminology).
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: For EOD, each grossly detectable nodule in the regional mesenteric fat is counted as one regional lymph node.
An official website of the United States government
Home