EOD-Extension--Colon: Is a pathology description of "superficial invasion of the muscularis mucosa in the upper stalk of the polyp" coded in this field to 10 [mucosa (including intramucosal) NOS], 12 [Muscularis mucosa], or 14 [Stalk of polyp]? See Description.
EOD-Extension--Breast: If a negative bone scan is followed by a bone marrow biopsy that is positive for metastatic disease, is the bony involvement used when coding extension [85] or as progression of disease (ignore mets when coding extension)? See discussion.
EOD-Lymph Nodes--Colon: Are deposits of carcinoma in the pericolic fat still coded as lymph nodes when the pathology report states, "there is a high likelihood that these represent foci of venous invasion"? See Description.
Behavior Code/EOD-Extension--Colon: Are extension codes 10 [Mucosa, NOS (incl. Intramucosal, NOS)] and 11 [Lamina propria] in situ, in accordance with AJCC stage for this site?
EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: Should this field be coded to 15 [Tumor identified by needle biopsy for elevated PSA] or 30 [Localized, NOS] when the only information is from a biopsy positive pathology report that includes the clinical history of "PSA elevated, DRE negative," with no mention of an ultrasound being performed?
EOD-Extension--Breast: If the pathology report states "infiltrating duct carcinoma...measuring 7mm in diameter...focal areas of intraductal carcinoma," do we code this field to 14 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in Tumor Size and in situ described as minimal] or to 16 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in Tumor Size and proportions of in situ and invasive not known]?
EOD-Lymph Nodes--Colon: Are "multiple submucosal lymphoid collections infiltrated with tumor" or "lymphoid areas" coded as lymph node involvement, similar to the way nodules in the pericolic fat are coded? See Description.
An official website of the United States government
Home