Hormone Therapy--Breast: Should Zoladex (gosrelin) or Lupron (leuprolide acetate) be coded as treatment for breast cancer when the physician does not indicate whether or not these drugs are intended as cancer-directed therapy? See discussion.
According to an oncologist at the research hospital in our region, these drugs are given in combination with chemotherapy for two reasons:
1) To preserve ovarian function.
2) The agents may be more effective in treating breast cancer when given in conjunction with chemotherapy than with chemotherapy alone.
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 to 12/31/2010: Code Zoladex (gosrelin) and Lupron (leuprolide acetate) as 01 [Hormone therapy administered as first course therapy] only when stated to be given as part of the first course of cancer-directed therapy. If you do not know whether these drugs were given to preserve ovarian function or as an adjunct to chemotherapy (i.e, there is no treatment plan), do not code as Hormonal treatment given.
First Course of Cancer-Directed Therapy--All Sites: How do we code retinoic acid?
The code for retinoic acid depends upon the primary site and histology of the tumor. Code retinoic acid (also called Vitamin A, tretinoin, ATRA, all-transretinoic acid or Vesanoid) in the Immunotherapy field as 01 [Immuno administered as first course therapy] for acute promyelocytic leukemia. This drug is given to patients as an alternative to chemotherapy.
For all other sites/histologies, code retinoic acid in the Other Cancer-Directed Therapy Field. Use code 2 [Other experimental cancer-directed therapy] or 3 [Double-blind clinical trial, code not yet broken] if the drug is given as part of a protocol. If the drug is not being given as part of a protocol or you don't know whether it is part of a protocol, use code 1 [Other cancer-directed therapy].
Other Therapy: What code is used to represent treatment with "Epithilone" or "Epothilone"?
Code the Other Cancer-Directed Therapy field to 2 [Other experimental cancer-directed therapy (not included elsewhere)], until the exact mechanism of action is determined for this drug. This drug is in phase I clinical trials. It has a similar action to Taxol, but is derived from a different source.
Grade, Differentiation--Breast: How do we code grade for a breast primary diagnosis of "Low grade invasive duct, modified Bloom-Richardson grade II/III (tubule formation 2, nuclear grade 1, mitotic rate 1)"? This appears to add up to a Bloom-Richardson score of 4, which does not fit with a Bloom-Richardson II/III.
Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 1 [grade I] using the information from the BR score.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Grade or differentiation information from breast pathology reports is used in the following priority order:
1. Terminology (well, moderately, poorly)
2. Histologic grade (grade I, grade II)
3. BR scores
4. BR grade
5. Nuclear grade
On the hierarchical list for coding breast grade, the first two priorities do not apply to this case, but the third (Bloom-Richardson scores) does. Add the BR information (2+1+1) for a total score of 4, which translates to BR low grade (code 1). The statement of "II/III" may be a typo that should state I/III.
EOD-Extension--Urinary Tract: Can the rules used to code bladder extension involving the term "no involvement of muscularis/and no mention of subepithelium/submuscosa" be used to code extension for other urinary tract primaries, such as ureter?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No. The inferred descriptions of noninvasion apply to bladder cases only.
Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma with a mucinous component, the mucinous component is less than 50%"? See discussion.
For mucinous only, the tumor must contain at least 50% mucinous to be coded to the specific histology.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8263/3 [adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma]. Because the mucinous component involves less than 50% of the tumor, the histology is not coded to mucinous. For mucinous only, the tumor must be at least 50% mucinous, mucin producing, to be coded to the specific histology.
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.
Primary Site--Meninges: Should the primary site for a meningioma of the right frontal lobe be coded to C71.1 or C70.0? See discussion.
In the opinion of some neurologists it is more important to capture the lobe in which the meningioma is located rather than code the primary site to meninges. Should a meningioma always be coded to meninges for primary site?
Code the Primary Site field to C70.0 [cerebral meninges], the suggested site code for most meningiomas. Meningiomas arise from the meninges, not the brain (although they can invade brain). ICD-O-3 does not differentiate the specific location of the brain that the meninges cover. The information of interest to neurologists would have to be captured in an optional or user-defined field.
Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: Why was the decision made not to code all "3-component differentiation systems" the same way that Bloom-Richardson is coded? For example, SEER codes a low grade BR to 1 for the Differentiation field and a low grade for other grading systems to 2. See discussion.
Our Pathologist Consultant agrees with SEER's guideline to code the Bloom-Richardson and B&R modifications of low, intermediate and high to 1, 2 and 3 respectively and thinks all 3-component systems should be coded that same way because it better represents the differentiation of the tumor. In his opinion, coding all other 3-component systems to a differentiation of 2, 3 and 4 respectively, is overstating the degree of differentiation.
The rules for coding histology are approved and used by all of the major standard setters through agreements reached in the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee. This issue is under review by our medical advisors and a special committee. Changes will be taken to the Uniform Data Standards Committee for review and approval.
Grade, Differentiation--Breast: Should the Bloom-Richardson (BR) grade (low, intermediate, high) have a higher priority than terminology (i.e., well differentiated)? See discussion.
2. Poorly differentiated but grade II/III. Microscopic comment: Slides show infiltrating ca which is P.D. in that it forms no tubules, but is grade 2 out of 3 in the modified BR scheme. It is ductal type with large moderately pleomorphic tumor cells displaying few mitoses.
3. Invasive moderately differentiated duct cell carcinoma with the following features: Modified BR grade: III/III (2+3+3=8).
For cases diagnosed prior to 2004:
Code the example cases as follows:
1. Grade 2. Histologic grade terminology ("intermediate") has the highest priority.
2. Grade 3. Terminology ("poorly differentiated") has the highest priority.
3. Grade 2. Histologic grade terminology "moderately differentiated" has priority.
EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: If the tumor arises in the prostatic apex, does that take priority over coding clinical extension based on the stage of cT1c? See discussion.
Physician states prostate primary is a cT1c. Pathology states adenocarcinoma, Gleason 3+3, right apex. All other biopsies were negative. Because the primary appears to be in the prostatic apex, do we code 33 or 15 for clinical extension? Which is more important for SEER? Do you want to capture the "apex" information or the "cT1c" information?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to 33 [arising in prostatic apex]. Apex information takes priority. The only statement we have is cT1c by the urologist, and we don't know how that stage was determined.
An official website of the United States government
Home