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.
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/Histology--Colon: What histology would be coded when the right colon demonstrates a combined adenocarcinoma and high grade small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma [forming the dominant component] arising in a villotubular adenoma and the liver biopsy demonstrates metastatic high grade small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, start with rule H1 in the Single Tumor module. Stop at rule H4. Assign code 8263 [adenocarcinoma in tubulovillous adenoma].
Stop at the first rule that applies. Code histology based on a specimen from the primary site whenever available.
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.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Which report and diagnosis should be used to code the histology if an excisional biopsy that removes the majority of the tumor has a diagnosis of "carcinoma," and the subsequent lumpectomy diagnosis is "microscopic residual disease consistent with infiltrating duct carcinoma"?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code histology for this case to 8010 [carcinoma]. The histology is coded from the pathology report with the most representative specimen (the most tumor tissue) even when the most representative specimen has a less specific histology.
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.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Prostate: If a patient is stated to have prostate "cancer" but a pathology report is not available nor is a specific histology stated in the medical record, can this histology be coded to 8140 [adenocarcinoma] instead of 8000/3 [cancer] because the vast majority of prostate cancers are adenocarcinomas?
For cases diagnosed 2007 and later, the correct histology code is 8000/3 [cancer]. The steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). Go to the Other Sites Histology rules because no specific rules have been developed for prostate primaries.
To determine the histology, start at the SINGLE TUMOR: INVASIVE ONLY module, rule H8. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. Code the histology documented by the physician when there is no pathology/cytology specimen or the pathology/cytology report is not available. Code the histology as 8000/3 [cancer] because that is the only available information. In the absence of a pathology report or any other histologic confirmation, code the histology based on the information available.
Primary Site: For malignant gastrointestinal tumors (GISTs), how should the primary site be coded and which Collaborative Stage and TNM staging schemes should be used for disease found in the stomach, small intestine or other locations?
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 primary site to the location where the GIST originated. If the primary site cannot be determined, assign code C809 [Unknown primary site].
GIST of gastrointestinal hollow viscera cannot be staged in TNM.
In Collaborative Staging, use the stomach scheme for GIST of the stomach. Use the small intestine scheme for GIST of the small intestine. For GIST of other primary sites, use the CS scheme for the specific site.
MP/H Rules/Recurrence--Breast: If the pathologist and oncologist call a 2007 lobular carcinoma that appears in a skin nodule of a mastectomy scar a recurrence of a patient's 1975 primary breast duct carcinoma, should we abstract this as a new primary? See Discussion.
According to the pathologist and oncologist, the change in histology is attributed to the present availability of E-cadherin, which was not available in 1975.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract the 2007 diagnosis as a separate primary using rule M5.
Rule M5 applies to this case because it comes before rule M12. Furthermore, based on your statement, the answer presumes that the original tumor was duct carcinoma only, there was no lobular carcinoma present. This must be a new primary because there are two different histologies.
The 2007 MP/H rules were developed with input from clinicians. They advised that a subsequent breast tumor more than five years later is a new primary. It is important to apply the rules so that these cases are handled in a consistant manner across all registries.
Date of Diagnosis: Can the phrase "suspicious for a primary lung tumor" from a CT be used to code date of diagnosis? See Discussion.
Thorax CT on 4/18/05 states 'enlarged RUL nodular opacity suspicious for a primary lung tumor.' Biopsy confirmation was not done until 8/4/05 because patient declined further work-up until then. Would date of diagnoses be 4/18/05 or 8/4/05?
Code the diagnosis date 08/04/2005 based on the biopsy.
The statement "suspicious for a primary tumor" is not a clinical diagnosis of cancer or malignancy.
An official website of the United States government
Home