Diagnostic confirmation: When a CT guided Fine Needle Aspiration is performed and the pathology report indicates smears and cell block were prepared, if the diagnosis is positive for cancer, can you code diagnostic confirmation as 2 (positive cytology) because of the cell block?
Yes, assign diagnostic confirmation code 2 for diagnosis based on smears and cell block from CT guided FNA. This reply pertains to solid tumors.
Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is benign neural tissue compatible with a glioneuronal hamartoma of the cerebellopontine angle reportable?
No. A glioneuronal hamartoma is not neoplastic and not reportable. See page 2 of the 2004 SEER Program Coding and Staging manual for the list of reportable brain/CNS tumors. There is no ICD-O-3 code for hamartoma.
No. Per Appendix F, erythrocytosis of an unknown cause is not reportable.
The diagnosis must state "erythrocytosis megalosplenic" to be reportable (9950/3).
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a physician diagnosis of "appears to be a myeloproliferative disorder" reportable if the patient has no treatment and the physician elects to follow the patient with CBC's?.
Yes. This is a reportable diagnosis and should be accessioned with the histology coded to 9975/3 [myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable].
The word is a reportable ambiguous term per the Hematopoietic Coding Manual (Case Reportability Instructions, Rule 4).
Myeloproliferative disorder is synonymous with myeloproliferative disease. Myeloproliferative disease is listed as an alternate name for myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable.
Diagnostic Confirmation--Testis: How do you code this field when a testicular mass is confirmed to be cancer on physical exam and testicular antigen, but the orchiectomy specimen was negative and yet the final signout diagnosis on the medical record was "testicular cancer"?
Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field to 5 [Positive laboratory test/marker study] because the disease was confirmed both clinically and by a positive marker. Code 8 [Clinical diagnosis only] is used when the diagnosis is based on information other than that coded in 5, 6, or 7 [positive lab test/marker study, visualization, and radiography or other imaging techniques]. Code 8 is rarely used.
Grade: Can the nuclear grade value be coded in the grade field for any site, or is it restricted to sites where it is specifically listed as an option in the coding manual, i.e., breast, kidney, urinary sites, etc.?
There is no restriction on sites for which nuclear grade can be coded in the grade field. If both differentiation and nuclear grade are specified, differentiation takes priority.
Primary site: Is there a physician priority list for coding primary site? For example, the surgeon states during a pancreatectomy that the primary is in body while the pathologist states in their synopitc report that primary is neck; neither is in agreement, or neither is available for confirmation.
As a general rule, the surgeon is usually in a better position to determine the site of origin compared to the pathologist. The surgeon sees the tumor in its anatomic location, while the pathologist is often using information given to him/her by the surgeon and looking at a specimen removed from the anatomic landmarks. However, when a pathologist is looking at an entire organ, such as the pancreas, he/she may be able to pinpoint the site of origin within that organ.
In the case of pancreas body vs. neck, the neck is a thin section of the pancreas located between the head and the body. It may be a matter of opinion whether a tumor is located in the "body" vs. the "neck." In the situation you describe, we would give preference to the surgeon and assign the code for body of pancreas, C251.
Primary Site/Histology--Ovary: We are encountering a primary site, histologic type, and behavior combination edit based on the Cancer PathCHART (CPC) tables. Using the CPC*Search tool, C569 and 8441/3 is a valid combination. The diagnosis date is 01/13/2024. Should an over-ride be applied with this combination?
The CPC Validity Status of the site morphology combinations of C569/8441/3 and C569/8441/2 was revised from Valid to Unlikely with the latest release of the Version v24A Edits Metafile. As a result, this site and morphology combination will now require an over-ride flag to be set.
Code as 8461/3 (high-grade serous carcinoma) or 8460/3 (low-grade serous carcinoma) if at all possible. Use 8441/3 (serous carcinoma, NOS) only if it cannot be distinguished as low grade or high grade. The codes for high-grade serous carcinoma and low-grade serous carcinoma are relatively new. High-grade serous carcinoma and low-grade serous carcinoma are very different tumors and pathologists should state whether it is high grade or low grade. Please make every attempt to use the newer codes. If unable to determine high gade versus low grade, assign 8441/3 and override the edit.
The files on the CPC website are currently being updated, and CPC*Search will be updated to reflect the changes sometime this Fall.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Ovary: Should the histology "endometroid adenocarcinoma arising in a serous fibroadenoma" be coded to 8380 [Endometroid adenocarcinoma, NOS] or 9014 [Malignant serous fibroadenoma]?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
The best code is 8381/3 [Endometroid adenofibroma, malignant]. According to our pathologist consultant: "Serous 'fibroadenoma' is not exactly standard terminology. I would guess the pathologist is looking at an adenofibroma with more fibro and less adeno and thus has changed the terminology around. The combination of the benign serous and malignant edometrioid is also a bit unusual. Each of the proposed codes is defendable, but I prefer endometrioid adenofibroma, 8381/3, because it puts the tumor in the adenofibroma category (less common) yet still identifies the malignant element (endometrioid), even though it does lose the serous. But anyone wanting to look at malignant adenofibromas would find the case, and we would carry it under the appropriate malignant component."
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.
An official website of the United States government
Home