EOD-Extension--Hematopoietic, NOS: If a solitary plasmacytoma originates in the right tonsil and extends to the left tonsil, vallecula and hypopharynx, is extension still coded to 10 [localized disease, solitary plasmacytoma only]?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 10 [localized disease, solitary plasmacytoma only] for all cases of solitary plasmacytoma.
Other Therapy/Immunotherapy--Hematopoietic, NOS: How should erythropoietin be coded for leukemia or other hematopoietic diseases?
Do not code Erythropoietin as treatment, it is used as an ancillary drug for leukemias or other hematopoietic diseases. Record information about erythropoietin in the text field.
EOD-Extension: The medical record lacks a clear statement that metastatic workup was complete. A metastatic deposit is identified within 4 months of diagnosis and while the patient is undergoing first course of treatment. How do you code the EOD-Extension field?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
In coding the EOD-Extension field, ignore metastasis that is discovered after the initial workup is completed regardless of the timeframe from diagnosis date until the date the metastatic deposit was discovered. The metastasis is progression of disease.
Any of the following represents progression of disease. Do not code the subsequently identified metastatic involvement in the EOD:
1) The metastatic workup was complete and treatment started before the procedure was done that found the metastatic involvement.
2) A procedure, such as a scan, was negative initially and a repeat of that procedure is now positive.
3) The treatment plan is developed for a localized disease process.
If you are unable to determine whether the newly discovered metastasis represents progression or is part of the initial workup, regard the metastasis as progression. Do not code the metastasis in the EOD-Extension field.
Computed Ethnicity: Should the Name--Alias field be used when generating Computed Ethnicity?
No, "Alias" is not used and should not be used to generate Computed Ethnicity. Computed Ethnicity records the ethnicity based on last name and/or maiden name using a computer algorithm. Alias is not part of the algorithm.
Ambiguous Terminology: Is the expression "has the markings of a malignancy" a clinically reportable term? See Discussion.
12/02 Baseline mammogram: spiculated mass with associated marked retraction located in UOQ lt breast. This has the markings of malignancy. Several microcalcifications in outer aspect of rt breast. BI-RADS 5 higly suggestive of malignancy.
Do not accession cases using only the term "has the markings of malignancy." This term is not on the list of ambiguous terms that are reportable. If the term does not appear on either the reportable or not reportable list, the term is not diagnostic of cancer. Do not accession the case.
Please see SINQ 20010094 in reference to BI-RADS terminology.
EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined: How are these fields coded when an autopsy report reveals pathologically involved regional lymph nodes but does not state how many nodes were positive nor how many were examined? See Description.
A final autopsy report described widely disseminated adenocarcinoma, probably lung primary. Metastatic tumor in brain, lungs, and in lymph nodes. The Gross description of the autopsy report stated that there were numerous metastases to hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes. The Micro description of the autopsy report did not add any clarification. In the absence of a stated number of lymph nodes, the options for coding number of regional lymph nodes examined are codes 96-98. These codes include descriptions of surgical procedures such as sampling and dissection. How do we code number of regional lymph nodes examined when the pathological examination of lymph nodes was done only at autopsy and not during a surgical procedure?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The rules that apply to the use of pathology reports for EOD coding also apply to autopsy reports.
When a cancer diagnosis is made and positive lymph nodes are discovered on autopsy, in the absence of a stated number of lymph nodes, code the number of lymph nodes positive to 97 [Positive nodes but number of positive nodes not specified]. Code the number of lymph nodes examined to 97 [Regional lymph node removal documented as dissection and number of lymph nodes unknown/not stated]. An autopsy is a dissection.
EOD-Extension: How is this field coded for synchronous primaries when metastatic disease is found and there is no statement to indicate which primary is the source of the metastases? See Description.
Patient was diagnosed with both esophageal and pancreatic cancer. Liver metastases were also identified. The source of the liver mets is unknown.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Search the record for information about the source of the metastasis. If no such information can be found, code the metastasis to both primaries. Update the abstracts when information becomes available confirming the primary site responsible for the metastasis. Assuming the liver metastases in the example above are distant (i.e. not contiguous) code extension as 85 [Metastasis].
Date of Diagnosis: Can the phrase "suspicious for a primary lung tumor" from a CT be used to code date of diagnosis? See Discussion.
Thorax CT on 4/18/05 states 'enlarged RUL nodular opacity suspicious for a primary lung tumor.' Biopsy confirmation was not done until 8/4/05 because patient declined further work-up until then. Would date of diagnoses be 4/18/05 or 8/4/05?
Code the diagnosis date 08/04/2005 based on the biopsy.
The statement "suspicious for a primary tumor" is not a clinical diagnosis of cancer or malignancy.
Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Liver: Does the final diagnosis of a scan have higher priority than the findings in the discussion in the body of the report? See Discussion.
A patient with liver cancer becomes transplant eligible when the tumor is 2 cm in size. Frequently, liver tumors will be watched (no biopsy) for months until they meet the 2 cm size criteria. In the meantime, multiple scans will describe the tumor using variations of ambiguous terms that drift in and out of reportablility. One day the tumor is labeled "presumed hepatocellular carcinoma." Weeks later it is back to "worrisome for hepatoma." A single scan will use different terms in different sections of the report.
Example case: Abdominal CT reveals a 1 cm liver lesion. Per the discussion portion of the scan, the lesion is consistent with hepatocellular carcinoma. Per final diagnosis: 1 cm liver lesion, possibly hepatocellular carcinoma. Is this report diagnostic of cancer? Would the date of this report be the date of diagnosis? (Patient did receive a liver transplant for hepatocellular carcinoma months later.)
When a reportable ambiguous term is used in one part of a report or the medical record and a non-reportable ambiguous term is used in another part of the report or the medical record, accept the reportable term and accession the case.
The example above is reportable. "Consistent with" is a reportable ambiguous term. Accept "consistent with" over the non-reportable term "possibly."
The date of this report would be the date of diagnosis if this is the earliest report using reportable terminology.
An official website of the United States government
Home