Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20031072 | EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: Is extracapsular extension implied by the phrase "tumor invades the fibrous tissue of the capsule"? See Description. |
The physician staged to a pathology stage of T3. It appears the physician regards the following pathology statement to be equivalent to capsular invasion on the right side: "Tumor invades the fibrous tissue of the capsule on the right side where it approaches to within 1 mm. of the surgical margin." Should pathologic extension be coded to 42[unilateral extracapsular extension]? |
Use the best information available to stage the case. In this case, the best information is the pathologist's description of the tumor extension rather than the AJCC stage. For cases diagnosed 1995-2003: Extracapsular extension is not implied by the phrase in the question. Code the capsular involvement described to 32 [invasion into but not beyond the prostatic capsule] on the basis of the pathology report. |
2003 |
|
|
20031094 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: How many primaries are coded and what code(s) is/are used to represent the histology "invasive ductal carcinoma with extensive spindle metaplastic change [metaplastic carcinoma] with a second, separate, tumor "invasive ductal carcinoma, moderately differentiated with extensive associated DCIS"? See Description. | The comment on the pathology report states, "due to the associated DCIS this smaller lesion is felt to most likely represent a synchronous second primary." Is this two primaries, one coded 8575/33 and the other coded 8500/32 or is this a single primary with a combination code -- 8523/33? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Abstract as two breast primaries. Code to 8575/33 (metaplastic carcinoma) and 8500/32 (infiltrating duct carcinoma). There are two lesions with different histologic types. Do not use code 8523 to combine separate tumors with different histologies.
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. |
2003 |
|
|
20031153 | Laterality/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Ovary: Are ovarian primaries with bilateral involvement always coded to laterality 4 (bilateral)? See Description. | Example: "Right ovary with mass replacing majority of ovarian tissue consistent with serous adenoca. Lt ovary with foci of adenoca." No specific statement of primary. Can we assume that the malignancy originated in the right ovary since it is more extensively involved or should laterality be coded 4 because both ovaries have tumor? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
If one ovary is listed as the primary site, code laterality to that ovary. The example above is one of those times when you would code to the single ovary. The issue of one or both ovaries being involved is handled in staging.
Abstract the example above as a single primary with code 1 [Right] for laterality.
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. |
2003 |
|
|
20031081 | Primary Site/EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Lung: If the only lung mass described in CXR is a "hilar mass," is the primary site coded to C34.9 [Lung, NOS] or C34.0 [Main Bronchus; incl. Carina]? Also, can the size of the hilar mass be used to code the size of tumor field? | Because the only description available is "hilar mass," code primary site as C34.0.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Use size of mass for EOD-Size of Primary Tumor. |
2003 | |
|
|
20031026 | EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: If there is no mention of vocal cord mobility, do we code indicating normal vocal cord mobility or do we code EOD-Extension to a "localized, NOS?" See discussion. | How do we code EOD-extension for the following tumor of the supraglottic larynx? Limited stage small cell cancer of epiglottis per discharge signout. Physical exam revealed swelling of anterior aspect of epiglottis and narrowing of epiglottis. Neck without palpable masses. Laryngoscopy with biopsy and esophagoscopy showed extensive tumor involving entire laryngeal surface of epiglottis, extending onto aryepiglottic fold, onto false vocal cords and onto left true vocal cord. Ventricle on left side was obliterated with tumor. Right true vocal cord free of tumor. There is no information regarding vocal cord mobility. Biopsy of the left true vocal cord was negative. Should EOD-extension be coded to 20 [Tumor involves more than one subsite of supraglottis without fixation or NOS] or 50 [Localized NOS]? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, if vocal cord mobility is not mentioned, code as normal mobility. Code EOD-extension for the example case as 20 [Tumor involves more than one subsite of supraglottis without fixation or NOS]. | 2003 |
|
|
20031198 | Surgery of Primary Site/Date Therapy Initiated--Head & Neck: Would a biopsy, NOS, that removed the majority of the tumor be used to code these fields? See Description. | Patient underwent biopsy, NOS, of a carcinoma of the tongue. Subsequent glossectomy revealed microscopic focus of residual squamous cell carcinoma. | If the biopsy NOS removed all macroscopic disease, code the date of the biopsy NOS as the date therapy initiated. If macroscopic disease remained following the biopsy NOS, code the glossectomy date as the date therapy initiated. | 2003 |
|
|
20031043 | EOD-Extension--Corpus Uteri: How is this field coded for a stage III A endometrial primary with positive pelvic washings, involvement of the omental serosa, and negative lymph nodes? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD-extension as 85 [Metastasis]. According to our TNM consultant, Omental metastasis is M1, Stage IVB [EOD 85]. | 2003 | |
|
|
20031140 | Primary site--Unknown & ill-defined site/Kidney: How should this field be coded when humeral metastases are compatible with renal cell carcinoma pathologically, no kidney lesion is found clinically and the physician's signout diagnosis is "no primary found, as of now unknown"? See Description. | Path states "biopsy of humerus, mets sarcomatoid carcinoma consistent with renal cell carcinoma." Material was sent to Mayo Clinic for consult & they state "with focus of clear cells, agree that a likely primary is renal cell carcinoma." Abdominal CT showed no abnormality in kidneys. When the registrar abstracted the case she spoke to the managing physician who told her that "no specific site was found and it was, as of now, unknown." This was stated about three months after dx. Can we code as a renal primary based on pathologic information or should we code unknown based on CT and physician's statement? | Code this case to C64.9 [Kidney, NOS]. ICD-O-3 rule H states that the topography code attached to a morphology term may be used when the topographic site is not given in the diagnosis. Topography code C64.9 is attached to morphology code 8312/3 [Renal cell carcinoma] in ICD-O-3. |
2003 |
|
|
20031080 | Behavior Code/EOD-Extension--Bladder: How are these fields coded for a bladder tumor in which the pathologist states, "there is no definite invasion identified" but the urologist states the case as T1? See Description. | Patient presents with four bladder tumors, described as "each measuring close to 2 cm." A specimen was taken of only one of the tumors. The tops of the tumors were fulgurated, then vaporized methodically. No obvious tumor or residual was noted on re-inspection. Pathology revealed papillary urothelial carcinoma, high grade, with no definite invasion identified. Small segments of muscularis propria were present. A comment read..."it is difficult to determine if lamina propria invasion is present due to marked necrosis and tissue fragmentation." Urologist staged this as AJCC cT2a, but based on the pathology findings changed it to cT1. The urologist insists this is invasive. |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Because of the damage to the specimen from cautery and the insistence of the urologist that the tumor was invasive, code extension for this case to 15 based on the physician's TNM category of T1.
A T1 is invasive--code the behavior /3. The urologist is confident it is invasive, and will likely treat the patient accordingly. |
2003 |
|
|
20031075 | EOD-Extension--Colon: How should this field be coded for "adenocarcinoma penetrating through bowel wall into adjacent adipose tissue? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The difference between EOD-extension codes 40 and 45 is the level of the fat involved. Code 40 is subserosal fat immediately adjacent to the muscular wall of the colon inside the serosa/visceral peritoneum. Code 45 is pericolic fat in areas where there is a serosal surface or in the retroperitoneal areas of the ascending and descending colon where there is no serosa. Code 42 was added for use when it is not possible to determine whether subserosal fat or pericolic fat is involved. Code 42 should be used only when there is a reference to 'fat' (NOS) The answer for the case example above depends on the location of the primary and whether the fat referred to is within or outside the entire thickness of the colon wall. If no additional information is available, use code 42 [Fat, NOS]. | 2003 |
An official website of the United States government
