CS Extension--Prostate: Can the phrase "hard, fixed prostate" be interpreted as clinical extracapsular extension and coded to 50 [extension or fixation to other structures]? See Discussion.
Patient had a "hard, fixed prostate" with needle core bx positive for Gleason grade 4+5=9 adenocarcinoma extensively involving gland. PSA was 87.5. Lymphadenectomy showed 3 positive pelvic/obturator lymph nodes. No prostatectomy was done and no physician TNM staging documented.
Do we need a specific clinical description of other organs to which the prostate is fixed in order to code CS Clinical Extension 50, or does the statement "hard, fixed prostate" qualify? If not, how would we code extension for this seemingly advanced cancer?
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 extension code 50 [extension or fixation to adjacent structures] based on the term "fixed." Fixation to a particular structure(s) does not have to be specified in order to use code 50.
Do not use the statement "hard" to determine CS extension.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is it generally correct that the code for PNET [9473/3] should be used to code tumors arising in the brain and spinal cord, and the code for pPNET [9364/3] should be used to code tumors arising in the bone and soft tissue? See Discussion.
The terms and definitions for "Brain" in the 2007 MP/H rules distinguish between pPNET and PNET. Is it correct even when the diagnostic terminology alone would lead to other coding, such as "PNET" used to diagnose a soft tissue mass in the chest and "neuroectodermal tumor" used to diagnose a brain mass?
Should additional rules be added to both "Brain" and "Other Sites" to enforce this distinction?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Yes. Assign code 9473/3 for tumors arising in the brain and spinal cord and assign code 9364/3 for tumors arising in the bone and soft tissue.
Clarification and reinforcement of this distinction will be added to the "Other sites" terms and definitions with the first revision to the MP/H rules.
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.
Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: Should code 51 (Modified radical mastectomy without removal of uninvolved contralateral breast) be used when a patient has excisional biopsy (22) and axillary dissection followed by a simple mastectomy without removal of uninvolved contralateral breast (41) as part of the first course of treatment?
Assign code 51 or 52 if a patient has an excisional biopsy and axillary dissection followed by a simple mastectomy during the first course of therapy. Code the cumulative result of the surgeries, which is a modified radical mastectomy in this case.
SEER collects only one surgery code per case. Code the most invasive, extensive or definitive surgery in Surgery of Primary Site.
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.
Multiple Primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries should be recorded in a patient with von Hippel Lindau disease that has a hemangioblastoma of the cerebellum in 2003 and a hemangioblastoma of the brainstem in 2007?
A tumor of the cerebellum (C716) and a tumor of the brainstem (C717) are multiple primaries because the topography codes are different at the fourth character of site.
Ambiguous Terminology: Why was 60 days chosen for ambiguous terminology?
The Histology Task Force approved a 60 day time frame for ambiguous terminology.
The majority of cases are first identified by ambiguous terminology; for example, a patient has a mammogram that shows a lesion suspicious for cancer. That first indication of cancer prompts a work-up to either confirm or rule-out the cancer diagnosis.
The data item "Ambiguous terminology" is not intended to capture information on this routine method of detecting and diagnosing cancer. The 60 day time frame should keep these cases out of the ambiguous terminology data item.
The data item is intended to identify those cases where the cancer diagnosis is NOT confirmed during the work-up, but the case is still entered into the database. For example a patient who has a TRUS because of elevated PSA. The pathology from the TRUS says "Suspicious for adenocarcinoma of the prostate." The physician only documents that the patient is to return in 6 months for another PSA and TRUS. The registrar would enter this case into the data base because the word "suspicious" is on the ambiguous terminology list.
CS Tumor Size/CS Extension--Prostate: Because prostatectomy results are excluded from the CS Extension field for prostate, is code 95 [No evidence of primary tumor] accurate to reflect bilateral lobe involvement of prostate cancer when it is incidentally found following a radical cystectomy for a bladder primary? Why must tumor size be 000 when the CS Extension code is 95?
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 prostate CS Extension to 99 [Extension unknown] and code CS Tumor Size according to the information available from the surgery.
CS Extension code 95 [No evidence of primary tumor] should be used only in that rare situation when the only evidence of disease is distant mets or lymph node involvement, no primary tumor found. That is why CS tumor Size must be 000 when CS Extension code 95 is used.
Radiation Therapy--Prostate: Is the regional treatment modality XRT best coded to 50 (brachytherapy, NOS), 53 (LDR) or 54 (HDR) when the documentation indicates only "I-125 seeds" to the prostate?
Assign code 53 [Brachytherapy, interstitial, LDR] for seeds to the prostate. Seeds are always low dose because they are left in place and the radioactivity decays over time.
An official website of the United States government
Home