System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 06/03/2025 23:04 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20170040

MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code for lung cancer case identified pathologically from a metastatic site that differs from the histology stated by the physician? See Discussion.

Bronchial washings were negative. Four lymph nodes were biopsied and found to have metastatic poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma. The treating oncologist calls it small cell carcinoma, extensive stage, and treats patient with carboplatin and VP-16 (etoposide) The MP/H rule says to take path/cyto from a metastatic site if no pathology/cytology available from the primary site. Is the physician's statement and treatment taken into consideration here?

Code the histology based on the pathology report from the lymph node biopsy for this case. Pathology has higher priority than a physician's statement for assigning histology code. Use text fields to document the physician's statement.

 2017
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
20120032

MP/H Rules/Histology--Melanoma: How is the histology coded for an invasive melanoma stated to have a "superficial spreading growth pattern"? See Discussion.

Some facilities in our reporting region submit pathology reports that document invasive melanoma cases with a subtype stated to be a "growth pattern." The MP/H rules state that we are not to use the term "pattern" to code the histology of invasive tumors. However, applying this rule means the more specific histology will not be recorded for any of these cases. Can the term "growth pattern" be a more specific histologic type for invasive melanomas when no other information is available?

Code the histology as superficial spreading melanoma [8743/3]. For cases diagnosed 2007-2014, the steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a melanoma primary, use the Melanoma Histology rules to determine the histology code because there are site specific rules for cutaneous melanomas.

Start at Rule H1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the applicable Module. Code the most specific histologic term when the diagnosis is melanoma, NOS [8720] with a single specific type, superficial spreading in this case. The subtype of this invasive melanoma is "superficial spreading."

A change will be made to Rule 9 in next update to indicate "growth pattern" can be used to describe an invasive histology.

 2012
20110137 MP/H Rules/Histology--Skin: How is the histology coded for a "malignant baso-melanocytic tumor" arising in the skin of right shoulder?

Code the histology as melanoma, NOS [8720/3].

This is a malignant skin tumor with both melanoma and basal cell carcinoma histologies. There is no ICD-O-3 code for this entity. Per our subject matter expert, code the histology to 8720/3 [melanoma, NOS] and document the diagnosis of malignant baso-melanocytic tumor in a text field because melanoma is reportable to SEER and basal cell carcinoma is not.

 2011
20120027 MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: How is histology coded if a patient has two frank invasive adenocarcinomas in one segment of the colon and multiple tubular adenomas and hyperplastic polyps throughout the entire colon without a diagnosis of familial polyposis [FAP]? See Discussion.

Does Rule H19 apply which indicates the histology is coded to 8221 [adenocarcinoma in multiple adenomatous polyps] because there are multiple polyps (number not specified) throughout the colon? Does tumor have to arise in at least one of the adenomas in order to apply Rule H19?

Or, does Rule H22 apply which indicates the histology is coded to 8140 [adenocarcinoma, NOS] because the adenocarcinomas are both frank invasive adenocarcinomas and not adenocarcinoma arising in an adenoma?

Code the histology as adenocarcinoma, NOS [8140/3].

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) and go to the Colon Histology rules to determine the histology code for this case. The Module you use depends on the behavior and number of tumors identified in the primary site.

Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS ABSTRACTED AS A SINGLE PRIMARY Module Rule H15. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order from Rule H15 to Rule H24. Stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing. Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. In this case, the only histology present was adenocarcinoma, NOS [8140/3].

Rules H17 through H21 do not apply in this case because there is no malignancy arising in any of the adenomas or polyps scattered throughout the colon.

2012
20170007

MP/H Rules/Histology--Urinary System: How should histology be coded when there are multiple bladder, ureter and renal pelvis urothelial tumors including non-invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma in the left ureter, invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma invading the lamina propria in the bladder, and an invasive sarcomatoid urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis that invades the muscularis? See Discussion.

Per Rule M8, this is a single primary as there are multiple urothelial tumors as outlined in Table 1 (papillary urothelial carcinoma [8130] and sarcomatoid urothelial carcinoma [8122]) simultaneously present in multiple urinary organs (bladder, ureter and renal pelvis). As Rule M8 indicates these are a single primary, despite the histologies differing at the third digit (8130 vs 8122), then Rule H14 (Code the histology of the most invasive tumor) seems to be the most applicable histology rule. Following Rule H14 (in the Text version of the MP/H Rules), the histology would be coded as 8122 (sarcomatoid urothelial carcinoma) since the renal pelvis tumor was the most invasive tumor present.

However, in both the Matrix and Flowchart versions of the MP/H Rules, Rule H14 contains a note (missing from the Text version) that states that this rule should only be used when the first three numbers of the histology codes are identical (This is a single primary). Rule M8 clearly tells us these are a single primary, despite the differences at the third digit of the histology. Further defaulting to Rule H15 (Code the numerically higher histology code) in this case would ignore the histology of the tumor with the worse prognosis (the most invasive tumor). Was this note included in the Matrix and Flowchart versions in error?

Code the histology as 8122 according to the MP/H rules for Renal Pelvis, Ureter, Bladder, and Other Urinary, M8 and H14. Rule M8 states urothelial tumors in two or more of urinary sites including bladder and renal pelvis are a single primary. Rule H14 states code the histology of the most invasive tumors for multiple tumors abstracted as a single primary.

 2017
20021105 Grade, Differentiation: Do we code to the highest grade even when no grade is given at the time of initial diagnosis, but a grade is obtained on tissue removed after non-surgical treatment has occurred? See discussion.

1. In 2000 a pleural fluid aspirate had no grade. Pt treated with chemo. In 2000 a BSO diagnosed high grade papillary serous adenocarcinoma of the ovary.

2. In 1993 a prostate bx had no grade. Pt treated. In 2001 prostate bx revealed a Gleason's 4+3.

Code the grade at the time of initial diagnosis (if the specimen is from the primary site) or to the grade identified as part of a first course of cancer-directed surgery to the primary site. When different grades are specified for tissue pathologically reviewed from the primary site before and after treatment, code the higher grade. This is true even if the higher grade is obtained while the pt is still undergoing first course of cancer-directed therapy.

1. Code the Grade to 4 [high grade], if the grade information from the BSO specimen represents the grade associated with primary site surgical specimen. Even though the grade was obtained after first course of cancer-directed therapy started, it was obtained during first course of cancer-directed therapy.

2. Code the Grade to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable]. Grade was obtained well after the first course of cancer-directed therapy ended.

 2002
20140001 Grade--Brain and CNS: How should grade be coded for a pineal parenchymal tumor of "intermediate differentiation"? See discussion.

Per a web search, the term "pineal parenchymal tumor of intermediate differentiation" refers to a pineal tumor with the histology/behavior that falls somewhere between the category of pineocytoma (9361/1) and pineoblastoma (9362/3). In other words, it is a malignant tumor that is a WHO grade II/III neoplasm because it's histologic features and behavior are not quite equivalent to a pineoblastoma (WHO grade IV). Thus, it appears the expression "intermediate differentiation" is actually referring to a type of WHO classification system rather than the grade field.

Should the type of documentation provided in pathology report be used to imply the grade field is being referenced and thus be coded to 2 for "intermediate differentiation" or should grade be coded to 9 based on the information found during the web search?

Code the grade as 2 based on instruction #8 in the revised grade instructions for 2014.

Do not use WHO grade to code the grade field for CNS tumors.

 2014
20140065

Summary Stage 2000--Melanoma: How should Summary Stage 2000 be coded for 2014+ diagnosed melanoma cases with satellite nodules or in transit metastases? See discussion.

The SEER SS (SSS) 2000 Manual indicates satellite nodules (NOS or less than/equal to 2cm from primary tumor) are regional by direct extension (code 2) and in-transit metastasis (satellite nodules greater than 2 cm from primary tumor) are coded as involvement of regional lymph nodes (code 3). However, CSv0205 indicates mapping for satellite nodules/in transit metastasis (coded in CS LN) was changed to Regional, NOS (code 5). There are no definitions listed for code 5 in the SSS 2000 Manual.

Our staff independently code SSS 2000. Should we code the existence of satellite nodules and in transit metastases according to the current definitions in the SSS 2000 Manual or using the mapping information from CSv0205?

Code the existence of satellite nodules and in transit metastases according to the current definitions in the SSS 2000 Manual. Do not use the mapping information from CS to code SSS.

2014
20130047 Date of diagnosis--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the diagnosis date for a patient with a mild thrombocytosis diagnosed in 2008, that was subsequently treated with Anagrelide in 11/2010 following an increase in platelet count, and later in 3/2011 was found to have positive JAK2 study physician refers to as essential thrombocythemia? See Discussion. In 2008, patient diagnosed with mild thrombocytosis. The patient opted to be followed clinically with observation. In November 2010, a CBC showed an increased platelet count to 600,000. Anagrelide was started. The patient would never agree to a bone marrow biopsy. However, in 3/2011 a JAK2 study was performed and read as positive. Following the positive Jak2 study, physician stated the diagnosis was essential thrombocytosis and started the patient on a different drug.

Code the diagnosis date to 3/2011. It wasn't until 3/2011 that the physician documented a reportable diagnosis of essential thrombocytosis [9962/3].

Mild thrombocytosis is not reportable. Therefore, the case was not reportable in 2008. Although the patient was treated in 2010, there was no documentation of a reportable diagnosis.

2013