MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: If the abstractor only has the CAP protocol information from a pathology report and it does not include a "final diagnosis" label, which fields of the protocol are used to determine the histology and whether there is carcinoma in situ present in the specimen?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, if the CAP protocol is used in lieu of a final diagnosis, use all of the information in the CAP protocol.
CS Lymph Nodes--Kidney, renal pelvis: Under what circumstances would code 80 [Lymph nodes, NOS] be used to document the presence of positive lymph nodes? See Discussion.
The CS Schema for Kidney (Renal Parenchyma) states to use code 70 for Regional Lymph Nodes, NOS. The schema for for Renal Pelvis states to use code 50 for Regional Lymph Nodes, NOS. Both schemas have a Code 80, for Lymph Nodes, NOS that maps to N1 in both schemas.
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 80 can be used for positive lymph nodes when you are unable to determine if they are regional or distant. CS Lymph Nodes code 80 is provided for this situation in accordance with the downstaging rule.
Code 80 should be used very infrequently and only when there is no indication whether the involved lymph nodes are regional or distant.
EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: When coding a prostate case with a date of diagnosis prior to 1995, is the EOD-Pathologic Extension-Prostate field left blank?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 1995, leave EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate field blank.
Code all EOD fields according to the EOD coding scheme in effect for that year of diagnosis.
Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: If an initial bone marrow diagnosis is "...more compatible with CMML/MPD" and within three months the final diagnosis per the oncologist is "MPD/CMML with acute myeloid leukemia transformation," is histology coded to CMML or AML? See Discussion.
09/06 BM Bx elsewhere was "compatible with MDS but more compatible with CMML/MPD" per MD notes.
10/06 BM Bx "...poor prognosis MDS, best classified as RAEB-2"
11/06 BM Bx "myeloproliferative CMML with leukemic transformation"
(on evaluation for BMT)
12/12/06 Pt was admitted with rapidly progressive disease & was started on chemo to try to get into remission for BMT. Final dx by oncologist is "MPD/CMML with acute myeloid leukemia transformation".
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code CMML for this case. Code the histology at initial diagnosis. This patient had rapid progression, but the initial diagnosis was "more compatible with CMML/MPD."
For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, 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 Eval/Surgery of Primary Site--Colon: When the only procedure performed is a polypectomy, if there is NO tumor at the margins, should CS TS/EXT-Eval be coded as 3 and the surgery coded as a polypectomy?
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.Assign eval code 3. A polypectomy with no tumor at the margin meets the criteria for pathologic staging.
Code polypectomy in Surgery of Primary site in this case.
Type of Multiple Tumors--Lung: Is this field coded to 40 [Multiple invasive] or 80 [Unk in situ or invasive] when only one nodule is biopsied of multiple existing nodules for a reported single lung primary? See Discussion.
The right lung has 4 tumor nodules in the upper lobe. Biopsy of one tumor is positive for moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma. No other work up performed.
Should code 40 be used because we dont know the behavior of the other nodules?
The best code to use in this case is 40 [multiple invasive]. For lung only, it is assumed that all of the tumors are the same histology and that all are invasive.
MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries/Histology--Prostate: How many primaries should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded for a case in which the pathology specimen showed adenocarcinoma in 20% of the tissue and sarcoma in 50% of the tissue? See Discussion.
Patient has TURP. The final path diagnosis is adenocarcinoma in 20% of tissue and sarcoma in 50% of tissue.
Because it is unknown whether there is a single or multiple tumors, rule M1 (Other Sites) is used which states the case is to be abstracted as a single primary.
Single invasive histology rules are followed to rule H16, but table 2 does not contain a mixed code for this situation, even though ICD-O-3 has a code 8933/3 for "adenosarcoma". Therefore, rule H17 is applied that states to use the highest code, which in this case would be 8800/3 [Sarcoma, NOS]. Is this correct?
For cases diagnosed 2007-2014, code as two primaries, one adenocarcinoma and the other sarcoma.
This is two tumors (adenocarcinoma and separate sarcoma) until proven otherwise. Do not code as adenosarcoma, as this is a gyn-specific diagnosis. Adenosarcoma of the prostate is not a recognized entity in the WHO classification of prostate tumors.
MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Bladder: The new multiple primary rule M7 states that tumors diagnosed more than three years apart are multiple primaries. Does this apply to in situ bladder tumors that occur more than three years apart and to an in situ tumor that occurs three years after an invasive tumor?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use the MP/H rules in order. Rule M6 comes before rule M7.
M6 states that bladder tumors with certain histologies are a single primary. It is a single primary regardless of timing if there is any combination of:
papillary carcinoma [8050]
transitional cell carcinoma [8120-8124]
papillary transitional cell carcinoma [8130-8131]
Rule M7 applies to bladder tumors with histologies other than those listed above. If you have such a case, rule M7 applies to in-situ tumors and to an in situ three years after an invasive.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: If a tubulovillous (TV) adenoma is in situ and other polyp(s) have an invasive component, does the in situ TV adenoma still have priority and should rule H18 be applied?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, always give precedence to coding the invasive. Rule H18 applies UNLESS the adenocarcinoma in the TV is in situ and the others are invasive. In this case, code the histology of the invasive adenocarcinoma.
This clarification will be added when the MP/H manual is revised.
Reportability/Terminology--Prostate: Is the diagnosis of "atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma" sufficient to report a prostate cancer if a note states that there is "insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy"? See Discussion.
Date of report is July 2005. One positive specimen of 12.
Specimen 6: Diagnosis = Prostate tissue with a small focus of atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma. Note. There is insufficient cytologic and/or architectural atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy. Negative basal cell staining with cytokeratin... in atypical glands is consistent with the diagnosis of suspicious for adenocarcinoma. In addition, the diagnosis is suppported by a positive staining for alpha-methyl COA racemase (P504S), a recently discovered marker that is preferentially expressed in prostate cancer...
This case is reportable. The diagnosis states "suspicious for adenocarcinoma." "Suspicious for" is a reportable ambiguous term.
The additional stains supported this "suspicious" diagnosis. A more definitive diagnosis could not be made based on this specimen.
An official website of the United States government
Home