Primary Site--Unknown & ill-defined site: Is the primary site code C809 [Unknown primary site] preferred over the use of a site code for an organ system (e.g., biliary tract, NOS) or a specific primary site (e.g., colon, NOS) when these are "favored" but other potential sites "cannot be excluded"? See Discussion.
Case 1 - CT: Mult pulm nodules, bilat pleural effusions; paraaortic, paracaval, celiac lymphadenopathy. Lytic lesions L4&L5.
Bx L3: Met pd adenoca. Based on the histopathologic features and the results of the immunostains, cholangiocarcinoma is regarded as the most likely primary. However, other possible primaries include pancreas, stomach, and (remotely) lung.
Should primary be coded as C26.9, digestive organ, NOS?
Case 2 - CT: Mult liver masses. Liver Bx: Mod diff adenoca. The most likely primary sites include cholangiocarcinoma, stomach and pancreas.
FDx per attending: Met adenocarcinoma to the liver, probably biliary origin.
What primary site code do we use?
Case 3 - Admitting Dx: Unknown primary with mets to lungs, liver and cerebellar area. Liver Bx: Met adenoca. The combination of morphological and immunohistochemical staining favor a colon primary. However other possibilities include cholangiocarcinoma and pancreatic ca.
Should we code site as C18.9 or C26.9?
Code the primary site according to the physician's opinion. An ill-defined site code or an NOS code for the organ system is preferred over C809 [Unknown primary site] whenever possible. Code C809 only when there is not enough information to use an ill-defined or NOS code.
Case 1 and Case 2 - Assign code C249 [Biliary tract, NOS]. Based on the available information, the physicians believe these are most likely biliary primaries.
Case 3 - Assign code C189 [Colon]. According to the available information, the physician believes this is most likely a colon primary.
CS Site Specific Factor--Colon: If the patient has a polypectomy followed by definitive surgery, can a higher CEA reported after the polypectomy but before the colon resection be coded?
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.If the tumor was in the polyp, do not use the post-polypectomy CEA even if it is higher than CEA's prior to the polypectomy. In this situation, the polypectomy would be treatment.
Conversely, if this is a frank adenocarcinoma or the tumor was so invasive that the polyp removed only a portion, use the post-polypectomy CEA because the polypectomy would not be treatment in this situation.
Primary Site--Unknown & ill-defined site: Should the primary site be coded to C809 [Unknown primary site] or C761 [Thorax, NOS] if the patient died following a limited work-up that included on a cytology on pericardial fluid that was positive for poor differentiated adenocarcinoma?
Based on the information provided, code the primary site to C809 [Unknown primary site]. There is not enough information provided to suggest that the primary site is the thorax or any other location.
Reportability/Behavior--Skin: Is an "atypical fibroxanthoma (superficial malignant fibrous histiocytoma)" with an ICDO-3 histology code of 8830 reportable with a behavior code of 3 or is it nonreportable with a behavior code of 1?
Yes, "atypical fibroxanthoma (superficial malignant fibrous histiocytoma)" is reportable. The information in parentheses provides more detail and confirms a reportable malignancy.
Multiple Primaries--Lymphoma: Is a diagnosis of mycosis fungoides followed a year later with a biopsy proven diagnosis of anaplastic large T-cell lymphoma stated to represent a transformation of the previous mycosis fungoides reportable as one or two primaries?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
This is one primary. Code the histology according to the original diagnosis, mycosis fungoides. The physician states that this one disease process started as mycosis fungoides and progressed into lymphoma. A physician's statement has priority over other sources in determining the number of hematopoietic primaries.
In October 2006, a committee will begin working on multple primaries among hematopoietic diseases. The committee will provide further guidance on dealing with disease transformation and other issues.
For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.
CS Lymph Node Examined--Lung: How is this field coded when a mediastinoscopy and lobectomy are performed and the pathology report indicates multiple lymph node fragments were removed as biopsy specimens and the lobectomy specimen revealed 3 interlobar lymph nodes?
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.
Code the CS Lymph Node Examined field to 98 [number unknown] because the biopsy information is not clear and as a result you do not know how many lymph nodes were examined.
Reportability/Grade, Differentiation: Does the term "grade 0" refer to differentiation or does its use as a modifying phrase in the final diagnosis of "grade 0 immature teratoma" impact reportability?
Regarding the term "grade 0" for an immature teratoma, determine whether the pathologist is using that term to describe the primary tumor or its implants. The term can be used to describe both situations.
An immature teratoma (IT) may have grade 0 (benign) implants. Grade 0 implants may affect the prognosis and treatment, but the primary tumor (IT) would still be malignant and therefore reportable. If grade 0 pertains to the primary tumor (as opposed to implants) it is benign, and therefore not reportable.
Histology--Breast: Does "cancerization" mean invasive for a breast tumor described as "DCIS with lobular cancerization"?
No, cancerization is not a synonym for invasive. Cells of DCIS can extend not only along the duct but also into the terminal lobules. This extension is referred to as lobular cancerization.
Surgery of Primary Site--Lung: Is this field coded to 30 [Resection of lobe or lobectomy] or 33 [Lobectomy with mediastinal lymph node dissection] when a lobectomy specimen includes 2 AP window lymph nodes? See Discussion.
LUL lobectomy: 1.7cm apical tumor, DX=mod well diff subpleural SCC, with involvement of pleural surface. 3 peribronchial LN neg and 2 AP window LNs neg. Stage T2N0.
1. No lymph node dissection or sampling was stated to be done
2. The lobectomy specimen contained the LNs
3. Scope of regional LN surgery is coded
Would the surgery to primary site code 30 or 33?
Code surgery of primary site to 30 [Resection of lobe or lobectomy]. According to the information provided, there was no lymph node dissection in this case. The 2 AP window nodes were obtained as part of the lobectomy specimen.
An official website of the United States government
Home