Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Skin: How many cases are to be abstracted and how is the histology field(s) coded for cases in which a fibrosarcoma arises in or transforms from a dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans? See Discussion.
1. If the fibrosarcoma occurs after DFP, and is called metastatic, is it a recurrence or is it a new primary? Example: Pt diagnosed in 7/05 with a high grade fibrosarcoma arising in a dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans. The path indicated "The presence of high grade fibrosarcoma, the extent of the tumor necrosis and the mitotic rate are all adverse prognostic findings that indicate a significant risk for mets." The patient had a recurrence in 8/06 called a low grade fibrosarcoma mets from prev." The DFP code is 8832/3 and a fibrosarcoma code is 8810/3. Our pathologist feels that the fibrosarcoma is a more aggressive tumor so should the case be coded to the 8810/3.
2. If DFSP has areas of fibrosarcoma, should it be coded to the latter because it is more aggressive? Example: Skin and subcutaneous tissue reads: Low grade sarcoma - tumor extends to margin. Comment: "Although the predominant pattern of this tumor is consistent with dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans, focal presence of hypercellularity and increased mitotic figures suggest transformation to Grade I fibrosarcoma. This progression, although focal, carries an increased risk of mets over classic DFSP. Code to 8810/31?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology to 8832/3 [Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans] for both cases. DFSP with transformation to fibrosarcoma and DFSP with areas of fibrosarcoma are coded to 8832/3.
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.
Reportability/Grade, Differentiation: Does the term "grade 0" refer to differentiation or does its use as a modifying phrase in the final diagnosis of "grade 0 immature teratoma" impact reportability?
Regarding the term "grade 0" for an immature teratoma, determine whether the pathologist is using that term to describe the primary tumor or its implants. The term can be used to describe both situations.
An immature teratoma (IT) may have grade 0 (benign) implants. Grade 0 implants may affect the prognosis and treatment, but the primary tumor (IT) would still be malignant and therefore reportable. If grade 0 pertains to the primary tumor (as opposed to implants) it is benign, and therefore not reportable.
Primary Site--Unknown & ill-defined site: Is the primary site code C809 [Unknown primary site] preferred over the use of a site code for an organ system (e.g., biliary tract, NOS) or a specific primary site (e.g., colon, NOS) when these are "favored" but other potential sites "cannot be excluded"? See Discussion.
Case 1 - CT: Mult pulm nodules, bilat pleural effusions; paraaortic, paracaval, celiac lymphadenopathy. Lytic lesions L4&L5.
Bx L3: Met pd adenoca. Based on the histopathologic features and the results of the immunostains, cholangiocarcinoma is regarded as the most likely primary. However, other possible primaries include pancreas, stomach, and (remotely) lung.
Should primary be coded as C26.9, digestive organ, NOS?
Case 2 - CT: Mult liver masses. Liver Bx: Mod diff adenoca. The most likely primary sites include cholangiocarcinoma, stomach and pancreas.
FDx per attending: Met adenocarcinoma to the liver, probably biliary origin.
What primary site code do we use?
Case 3 - Admitting Dx: Unknown primary with mets to lungs, liver and cerebellar area. Liver Bx: Met adenoca. The combination of morphological and immunohistochemical staining favor a colon primary. However other possibilities include cholangiocarcinoma and pancreatic ca.
Should we code site as C18.9 or C26.9?
Code the primary site according to the physician's opinion. An ill-defined site code or an NOS code for the organ system is preferred over C809 [Unknown primary site] whenever possible. Code C809 only when there is not enough information to use an ill-defined or NOS code.
Case 1 and Case 2 - Assign code C249 [Biliary tract, NOS]. Based on the available information, the physicians believe these are most likely biliary primaries.
Case 3 - Assign code C189 [Colon]. According to the available information, the physician believes this is most likely a colon primary.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Pancreas: Is a "composite mucinous adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma" coded to 8560 [adenosquamous carcinoma] or should 8480 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] be coded rather than 8070 [squamous carcinoma] because mucinous adenocarcinoma is a higher histology code than squamous carcinoma?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign code 8560 [adenosquamous carcinoma]. According to our pathologist consultant, the mix of adenocarcinoma and squamous carcinoma is adenosquamous carcinoma. Adenosquamous tumors are rare, but known, representing 3-4% of pancreatic carcinomas.
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.
Date of Diagnosis/Ambiguous Terminology--Lung: Would the date of a PET scan that states there is a mass in the lung which is "in the range of malignancy " be coded as the date of diagnosis or would the date of a subsequent bronchoscopy with biopsy be used for diagnosis date because it confirms a malignancy?
The date of diagnosis in this case is the date of the bronchoscopy with biopsy.
"In the range of malignancy" is not one of the ambiguous terms that are reportable. Please see the list of reportable ambiguous terms on page 3 of the 2004 SEER manual. Do not accession cases based on ambiguous terms not found on the reportable list.
CS Extension/CS Mets: For primary sites within the peritoneum (abdominalpelvic walls) such as stomach, colon, does the presence of malignant ascites affect the coding of CS Extension or CS Mets?
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.
The Collaborative Staging system is governed by site-specific coding rules. Refer to each set of site rules rather than looking for a general answer for all sites in peritoneum. In particular, Ovary and Corpus allow malignant ascites to be coded in CS Extension, but not CS Mets at Dx. For each site, both CS Extension and CS Mets at Dx should be checked for the proper field to code malignant ascites.
First Course Treatment: If an "aromatase inhibitor" used as a complement to Tamoxifen is treatment, how should it be coded?
When an aromatase inhibitor is part of the planned first course of therapy, code it under hormone treatment.
When a change of drug is PLANNED, it is part of the same course even if subcategories change. This is the usual situation with Tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitor (for example: Femara). The switch to Femara is planned, so it is not a new course. When a drug change happens that is not planned, it is still the same course if both drugs are in the same category and subcategory. An unplanned drug change to a different subcategory would be a new course.
Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is benign neural tissue compatible with a glioneuronal hamartoma of the cerebellopontine angle reportable?
No. A glioneuronal hamartoma is not neoplastic and not reportable. See page 2 of the 2004 SEER Program Coding and Staging manual for the list of reportable brain/CNS tumors. There is no ICD-O-3 code for hamartoma.
An official website of the United States government
Home