Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20150013 | Surgery of Primary Site: What is the most extensive, invasive or definitive surgical procedure when the second surgical procedure performed has a lower surgery code? See discussion.
|
Examples
8/xx/13 TURBT with path specimen (27): Papillary Urothelial Carcinoma, HG 9/xx/13 Bladder fulgeration w/o path specimen (12)
5/xx/14 Segmental Mastectomy(24): Ductal carcinoma with <1mm marg 6/xx/14 Breast Re-excision (23): Residual ductal carcinoma 1.5mm, marg neg |
The code in Surgical Procedure of Primary Site should correspond to the most invasive, extensive, or definitive surgery when the patient has multiple surgical procedures of the primary site even if there is no residual tumor found in the pathologic specimen from the more extensive surgery. The timing of the procedures does not affect the code choice.
Assign code 27 for the first example. Assign code 24 for the second example. |
2015 |
|
|
20150011 | Surgery Primary Site--Breast: Please clarify how to code both simple mastectomy with tissue expander and AlloDerm reconstruction, and simple mastectomy with tissue expander (NOS). See discussion. |
There are multiple SEER Notes in the Breast Surgery Codes of Appendix C instructing us to code tissue expanders as reconstruction but none address the type of reconstruction to be coded.
1. Is a tissue expander always equivalent to Implant reconstruction? 2. Is AlloDerm always equivalent to Tissue reconstruction? 3. Is the combination of AlloDerm and tissue expander always equivalent to Combined (tissue and implant) reconstruction? |
Do not code AlloDerm as either a tissue or implant reconstruction, it is a graft material that usually accompanies implant reconstruction. Placement of a tissue expander is an indication of planned reconstruction. Additional information is needed to determine whether the reconstruction involves tissue or implant.
1. A tissue expander is not always equivalent to Implant reconstruction 2. AlloDerm is not equivalent to tissue reconstruction 3. The combination of AlloDerm and tissue expander is not equivalent to combined (tissue and implant) reconstruction |
2015 |
|
|
20150010 | Multiple Primaries/Histology--Colon: What is the correct histology code and MP/H Rule when a colectomy final diagnosis is adenocarcinoma with colloid and signet ring cell features? See discussion. |
The MP/H Equivalent Terms and Definitions for Colon indicate that type, subtype, predominantly, with features of, major, or with ___ differentiation are all equivalent in terms of coding histology. However, this is not indicated in the General Instructions (e.g., Histologic Type ICD-O-3 or General Instructions Histology Coding Rules). It also is not included as a Note under the Rules where one would expect to use these terms, for example, Rule H7. Is this an oversight or error in the Manual?
In this case, Rule H7 seems to be the first (and most appropriate) rule that applies to this mixed histology tumor. However, the specific histology terms that an invasive tumor may be identified as, are only listed under Rule H13. Can these same terms be used when applying rules for which they are not specifically noted? It would seem logical to use the equivalent histology terms to code a mixed histology tumor identified as a subtype or with features, etc., despite the fact that the specific terms are not listed under Rule H7.
|
Rule H7 applies. Assign code 8255. H13 does not apply as mucinous/colloid/signet are not NOS histologies. They are specific histologies. This will be addressed in the upcoming revisions to the rules. |
2015 |
|
|
20150009 | Multiple Primaries/Behavior--Lung: When a patient has an invasive lung primary, how do in situ tumors of the lung affect the determination of multiple primaries? See discussion. |
How many primaries should be reported when a 12/19/14 RUL lung wedge resection shows: 2.0 cm invasive adenocarcinoma (8140/3) and an additional RUL wedge resection during the same procedure shows: multifocal adenocarcinoma in situ (bronchioloalveolar carcinoma), non-mucinous type (8252/2) size: 1 mm – 2 mm; followed by a 2/12/15 left upper lobectomy also showing Adenocarcinoma, invasive at several foci, with a prominent bronchioloalveolar (in situ) component….tumor focality: multifocal (10 cm mass, 6 cm mass and numerous smaller foci)? |
Most often when the invasive tumor and the in situ component are in the same lung and are the same histology, rule M12 (example 3) applies and this is a single primary. If the first wedge resection included part of the tumor and the in situ was not separate from the tumor, it is a single primary. We suspect that the margins were positive on the first wedge specimen which prompted the second wedge resection where the in situ was found. In addition, terminology for lung malignancies is undergoing change: what was called BAC (invasive) is now called adenocarcinoma in situ. |
2015 |
|
|
20150008 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is idiopathic hypereosinophilia reportable? Must the diagnosis include the word 'syndrome'? |
Idiopathic hypereosinophilia is not reportable.
Hypereosinophilic syndrome is a different entity and is a synonym for chronic eosinophilic leukemia. |
2015 | |
|
|
20150007 | MP/H Rules/Histology: What is the proper histology code -- mucin producing adenocarcinoma or cholangiocarcinoma for the following case? See discussion. |
4/10/13 Partial hepatectomy: well differentiated mucin producing adenoca involve right and left hepatic ducts, common hepatic duct & common bile duct. Invasion beyond wall of bile duct. CT Scan after 1st surgery shows residual neoplasm cannot be excluded
7/31/13 Left lateral segmentectomy: residual well differentiated cholangiiocarcinoma involving connective tissue surrounding major bile ducts. Per medical director, histolgically code to cholangiocarcinoma.
Primary site: Extra hepatic bile duct. Chemo (5FU, Leucovorin, Oxaliplatin) was started 5/1.
|
Code the histology as well differentiated mucin producing adenoca based on the 4/10/13 pathology report.
Code histology from the pathology report of the procedure which removed the most tumor tissue -- this is from the MP/H general instructions for coding histology. We are assuming that the partial hepatectomy removed the most tumor tissue in this case.
Per WHO, mucin producing adenoca is a variant of cholangiocarcioma. |
2015 |
|
|
20150005 | Reportability--Skin: Is this case not reportable if the intranasal polyp is covered with cutaneous epithelium (essentially skin) or, is it reportable as a primary intranasal basal cell carcinoma? I have found one article regarding primary intranasal basal cells, which are described as being "very rare". But, I am not sure whether, in those cases, cutaneous epithelium was found.
FINAL DIAGNOSIS: (A) Nasal cavity, polyp, excision: Sinonasal inflammatory polyp with overlying cutaneous epithelium showing foci of superficial (noninvasive) basal cell carcinoma |
Report this case as a basal cell carcinoma, noninvasive, of the nasal cavity, based on the information provided.
The polyp was removed from the nasal cavity (C300) which is a reportable site for basal cell carcinoma. |
2015 | |
|
|
20150003 | Reportability/Behavior: Is the following reportable, and if so, what is the histology code? Final Diagnosis (on multiple conjunctive excisions): Conjunctiva - primary acquired melanosis with atypia (see note). Note: "In all 3 specimens the process extends to the margins of excision. Complete extirpation is recommended (primary acquired melanosis with atypia is considered melanoma in situ). |
Do not report primary acquired melanosis with atypia.
According to our expert pathologist consultant, "There has been a lot of debate in the literature about the diagnostic criteria, terminology, and natural history of primary acquired melanosis [PAM]. Your case comes down squarely on the main issue, which is whether PAM with atypia should be regarded as melanoma in situ. In most studies it appears that PAMs with no atypia or mild atypia do not progress to melanoma, and only a small percentage of those with severe atypia do so." "PAM, even with atypia, is not melanoma in situ, and should not be reported."
For further information, see this article for a review of a large number of patients: Shields, Jerry A, Shields, Carol L, et al. Primary Acquired Melanosis of the Conjunctiva: Experience with 311 Eyes. Trans. Am Ophthalmol Soc 105:61-72, Dec 2007.
|
2015 | |
|
|
20150002 | Reportability--Bladder: Please explain the reportability of UroVysion for bladder cancer in the following circumstances.
1. Patient has positive UroVysion test and follow up biopsy is negative. Is this case reportable with a diagnosis date the date of the UroVysion?
2. Patient has positive UroVysion test and follow up biopsy is positive for cancer. Is the diagnosis date of the date of the positive UroVysion or the date of the positive biopsy? Thank you. |
Do not report a case based on UroVysion test results alone. Report a case when there is positive histology, a physician statement of malignancy, and/or the patient was treated for cancer.
1. Do not report the case.
2. Report the case based on the positive biopsy. |
2015 | |
|
|
20150001 | Reportability/Histology: Would a histology reading "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix be reportable? Since the word "tumor NOS" and "neoplasm NOS" both code to 8000, I would assume they would be interchangeable but just wanted to verify. According to SINQ 20130027 & 20140002 a "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" of the appendix IS reportable. |
"Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix is reportable. According to the WHO classification of Digestive System Tumors, "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix is synonymous with NET. WHO states on page 13 "The term 'neuroendocrine neoplasm' can be used synonymously with 'neuroendocrine tumor.'" Neuroendocrine "tumor," or NET G1, is listed in the WHO classification as one of the malignant neoplasms of the appendix. |
2015 |
An official website of the United States government
Government Funding Lapse
Because of a lapse in government funding, the information on this website may not be up to date, transactions submitted via the website may not be processed, and the agency may not be able to respond to inquiries until appropriations are enacted. The NIH Clinical Center (the research hospital of NIH) is open. For more details about its operating status, please visit cc.nih.gov. Updates regarding government operating status and resumption of normal operations can be found at OPM.gov.
