Grade--Kidney, renal pelvis: How is this field coded for a non-invasive high grade papillary urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis? See Discussion.
Per instructions in the 2010 SEER Manual, Appendix C, Coding Guidelines for Bladder, "Code grade 9 (unknown) for non-invasive urothelial (transitional) tumors." The Coding Guidelines listed under Renal Pelvis, Ureter are only for Kidney [C649]. Do the grade instructions under bladder apply to ALL non-invasive urothelial tumors, or are we to use the kidney grading instructions to code grade for renal pelvis and ureter malignancies?
Code grade to 4 [high grade]. Follow the instructions in the main part of the 2010 SEER Manual under the data item Grade (pages 73 - 76). There are no specific instructions for coding grade for renal pelvis. Apply the general instructions in the absence of site-specific instructions.
Grade--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should Grade be coded to 5 [T-cell] or 9 [cell type not determined, not stated, not applicable] for anaplastic large cell lymphoma, NOS [9714/3]? See Discussion.
Under the Grade section in the Heme DB for anaplastic large cell lymphoma, NOS it indicates the following:
"Grade - Code grade specified by pathologist. If no grade specified, code 9."
There is no reference in the Grade section that we should look at the Abstractor Notes or a specific Module in the Heme DB for additional information. However, in the Abstractor Notes section it states, "Grade is T-cell (5) unless pathologist specifically designates as a B-cell (see G2 rule)." These two statements are conflicting. Which is the correct grade?
Assign code 5 [T-cell] for anaplastic large cell lymphoma [9714/3] unless the pathologist specifies that the histology is a B-cell disease process. See Grade rule G2, Note 2.
In the Heme DB, there is a default value in the Grade field for histologies that do not have a grade specified. However, this particular histology does not default to code 9. There was an error in the Grade section of the 2010 and 2012 versions of Heme DB that has now been corrected in the latest release.
Grade--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is the phrase "aberrant T-cell expression" enough to code the grade field to T-cell when the final diagnosis on the pathology report is "AML with aberrant T-cell antigen expression"?
Yes. Code grade to 5 [T-cell]. The T cell receptor, or TCR, is a molecule found on the surface of T lymphocytes (or T cells).
Grade--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is grade coded for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, NOS? See Discussion.
The Heme DB indicates histology code 9811/3 [B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma] is the current histology code to use for the now obsolete term of acute lymphoblastic leukemia [9835/3]. The Heme DB entry for histology code 9835/3 states to "Code grade specified by pathologist. If no grade specified, code 9." The Heme DB entry for the current histology code, 9811/3, states to code the grade to 6 [B-cell]. Should grade be coded to 6 [B-cell] for all cases coded to histology code 9811/3?
Code the grade to 6 [B-cell] for all cases of 9811/3 [B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma] per Rule G3 in the Heme Manual.
Acute lymphoblastic leukemia, NOS [9835/3] is an obsolete code and cannot be used for cases diagnosed 2010 and later. The Heme DB indicates the correct histology code is 9811/3 and grade 6 [B-cell] for cases diagnosed 2010 and later.
For cases of acute lymphoblastic lymphoma, NOS [9835/3] diagnosed prior to 2010, use the pathology report information to code the grade. Code the grade as 9 [unknown] if the pathology report does not specify the grade.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
Grade--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is grade coded for a malignant non-Hodgkin lymphoma, large B-cell type, with features consistent with T-cell rich variant?
Code grade to 6 [B-cell] for the histology malignant non-Hodgkin lymphoma, large B-cell type, with features consistent with T-cell rich variant [9680/3]. Under the Definition section for histology code 9680/3 it states there are morphologic variants of the disease: centroblastic, immunoblastic, plasmablastic, T-cell/histiocyte-rich, anaplastic.
Rule G3 in the Heme Manual confirms the grade listed in the Heme DB under its Grade section for the histology 9680/3. While the patient presented with a variant of DLBCL that is T-cell/histiocyte rich, it is still a B-cell phenotype. The grade is coded accordingly.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
Grade--Breast: How is this field coded for an "invasive ductal carcinoma, well differentiated, low nuclear grade"?
Assign code 1 [Grade 1, well differentiated]. Use the table in the 2007 SEER Manual on page C-607. Both "low grade" and "well differentiated" are coded 1 in the grade field.
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.
Grade, Differentiation: Is grade always coded to 4 for a diagnosis of Ewing's sarcoma?
Do not code the ICD-O-3 grade for Ewing sarcoma unless documented in the record.
In the TNM system, grade is required to place Ewing sarcoma into a stage group. For TNM staging purposes, Ewing sarcoma is classified as G4. Do not apply TNM rules to ICD-O coding.
An official website of the United States government
Home