Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Prostate: Can you clarify why a prostate biopsy diagnosis of “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” is not reportable while a biopsy diagnosis of “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable? See discussion.
SINQ 20091103 states that prostate biopsies showing “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” are NOT reportable. However, SINQ 20071056 states that “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable. This appears to be an issue of semantics with no clearly outlined method to determine reportability of such cases.
We have two recent cases with similar semantic issues and want to know whether they are reportable.
1) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation, highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma, with quality/quantity insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer.”
2) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma but due to the small size of focus, findings are not definitively diagnostic.”
Both case examples provided are reportable using instructions for ambiguous terminology. The diagnoses are qualified by the words "highly suspicious" because neither diagnosis is definitive ("insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer" and "not definitively diagnostic."). However, we follow our instructions for interpreting ambiguous terminology and report these cases.
SINQ 20091103 differs slightly. The final diagnosis in 20091103 declares unequivocally "not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma." That phrase in the final diagnosis negates the ambiguous terminology. The situation in 20071056 is similar to the two examples above - the ambiguous terminology instructions apply.
Grade--Liver: How should grade be coded for a liver lesion treated with radio frequency ablation (RFA) followed by a transplant showing moderately differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma? See discussion.
The SEER Manual emphasizes the importance of coding grade only prior to neoadjuvant treatment as systemic treatment and radiation can alter a tumor's grade. This patient did not have neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiation, but did undergo a prior surgical procedure (RFA) in an attempt to destroy tumor tissue. The subsequent transplant showed residual moderately differentiated HCC.
For this case, record the grade specified even though it is after RFA. RFA is not systemic or radiation treatment and should not alter the grade.
First course treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Anus: Would infrared coagulation be coded as treatment for AIN III of the anus/anal canal? See discussion.
SINQ 20051064 indicates infrared coagulation is not treatment for cancer. Internet search explains that infrared coagulation delivers heat to destroy the tissue so it can be removed. In our region it is currently used to treat internal and external anal low grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) and high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL). While it is understandable that this wouldn't be coded as treatment for an invasive anal primary, could it be treatment for an in situ tumor? If it is treatment, should it be coded under Surgery code 15
The answer to SINQ 20050164 still applies. Do not code infrared coagulation as cancer treatment. It is used to coagulate blood vessels and not to destroy cancer tissue.
First course treatment: When a patient has a Haplo bone marrow transplant, is this coded as an allogenic bone marrow transplant since part of his marrow was used in addition to a donor?
Use code 12 in the Hematologic Transplant & Endocrine Procedures data field. Per the NCI, this procedure is an allogeneic transplant.
Rather than wiping out a patient’s immune system before transplanting donor bone marrow, doctors administer just enough chemotherapy to suppress the immune system, which keeps patients from rejecting the donated marrow without harming their organs. The procedure requires just a half-match, meaning that a patient’s parents or children could be suitable donors. AKA: Half-match transplants.
MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Thyroid: How many primaries should be reported when a complete thyroidectomy specimen shows two tumors: 1.8 cm papillary carcinoma with tall cell features (8344/3) and a 0.4 cm papillary thyroid carcinoma (8260/3)? See discussion.
Is papillary thyroid carcinoma an NOS histology qualifying for rule M16, thus leading to a single primary, or would M17 apply (multiple primaries) because the histology codes are different at the second digit (8260 and 8344)? While rule M16 doesn't include papillary thyroid carcinoma in the listed histologies, it seems like it may be an NOS histology for the thyroid. In addition, code 8260/3 is listed as NOS in the ICD-O-3.
Apply rule M16 and abstract a single primary. These two thyroid tumors, one papillary carcinoma with tall cell features (8344/3) and one papillary thyroid carcinoma, fit the criteria for rule M16, although not explicity listed there. We will clarify this in the next version of the rules.
Primary site: What primary site do I assign to a Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the parapharyngeal space when there is no other info available regarding a more definitive site within the parapharyngeal space? Each physician involved with the case states the primary site is the parapharyngeal space. This is a patient who was diagosed and treated elswhere and was seen at our hospital several months later for a radical neck dissection for suspected lymph node mets.
Assign C139 for a primary originating in the parapharyngeal space. This space contains part of the parotid gland, adipose tissue, lymph nodes, nerves, arteries and veins.
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."
MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Bladder: Is this a single primary or multiple primaries? Transurethral resection of the bladder identifies two bladder tumors. Pathology states one is high grade papillary carcinoma (8130/3) and the other is lymphoepithelioma-like urothelial carcinoma (8082/3). Lymphoepithelioma-like is listed as a urothelial type in Table 1 but rule M6 does not include it in the list of histologies and we are not told to refer to Table 1. M8 refers to Table 1 but does not include multiple bladder tumors (C67_). Specify which rule would apply and why.
Rule M9 applies to this case. Abstract two primaries. M6 does not apply to this case because code 8082 is not one of the applicable histology codes for M6. This situation will be reviewed as we prepare the next version of the rules.
Reportability/Histology: Is this reporatable? If so, what is the correct histology?
2012 duodenal nodule biopsy, pathology positive for well differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm.
Report this case as 8240/3. In this context, well differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm seems to be a synonym for neuroendocrine tumor (NET) G1 (carcinoid). According to the WHO classification, "Neuroendocrine neoplasms of the duodenum comprise NETs..."
An official website of the United States government
Home