CS Site Specific Factor 6--Breast: Can we interpret the in situ component as "minimal" when the pathology report states "1.1 cm infiltrating duct carcinoma and no extensive intraductal component"?
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.
Yes. Based on the information provided above, the in situ component is "mininmal" for the purpose of coding Breast CS Site Specific Factor 6. The phrase "no extensive intraductal component" suggests that there is some intraductal carcinoma present.
Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "PD infiltrating duct ca with focal sarcomatoid pleomorphic features?"
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology as 8500/33 [Infiltrating duct carcinoma, poorly differentiated]. "Features" is a term from the list indicating a majority of the tumor, however; in this case "features" is modified by "focal" which does not indicate a majority of the tumor.
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.
Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is this 2 primaries? In 2011, a patient had a spinal mass biopsied positive for DLBCL and follicular lymphoma. The heme rules make this one primary coded as DLBCL. Patient had 2 rounds of chemo, but in 2014, he had a recurrent tumor in the same location. The 2014 biopsy was follicular lymphoma. Is this a new primary -- conversion of acute to chronic after treatment? Or is it the same, since FL was diagnosed in the original specimen?
Rule M13 applies, abstract as two primaries. Since both DLBCL and FL were present in 2011, rule M2 does not fit -- not a single histology. Rule M13 reflects the situation in this case much better: an acute neoplasm which was treated and a chronic neoplasm diagnosed later.
Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is Langerhans cell histiocytosis [9751/1] of the meninges [C709] reportable?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Yes. The criteria for reportable benign/borderline CNS tumors is based on location (site) and behavior (benign/borderline). There is no caveat for histologic type. Therefore, this would be reportable as these tumors have been reported arising from the meninges or choroid plexus.
For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.
Primary Site: How do you code the primary site when the tumor is identified in a bladder that was reconstructed using a stomach augmentation procedure and the pathology report states, "Bladder/prostate: adenocarcinoma arising within gastric mucosa, with the following features: highly infiltrative through the bladder wall"?
Code the Primary Site field to bladder [C67.9]. Code the location of the tumor as the primary site.
First course of treatment/Radiation therapy--Kidney: Patient has a CT-guided biopsy of a right renal mass with procedure details under the Interventional Radiology Procedure Note stating "Gelfoam tract embolization." Is this particular embolization treatment?
Gelfoam tract embolization for a CT-guided renal biopsy is not treatment. It is a method to plug the biopsy track to reduce the risk of hemorrhage.
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.
Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: How is this field coded when a re-excision follows a prior mastectomy?
Code the most extensive surgery in Surgery of Primary Site. This is a cumulative field. Assign the appropriate code including all surgeries of the primary site performed during the first course of treatment.
The correct code for mastectomy followed by re-excision will depend on the extent of the re-excision. For example, if the re-excision removed muscle, code radical mastectomy.
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.
Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: Should we take the grade from a TNM staging form over a grade stated in a pathology report when the grade mentioned on the TNM staging form is a higher grade (e.g., Pathology report diagnosis is moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma, Gleason's 3+3=6, but the physician checked "poorly differentiated" on the TNM form)?
Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 2 [moderatley differentiated]. Code from the pathology report over the TNM staging form. If you do not have access to the path report, use the grade from the TNM form.
An official website of the United States government
Home