Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation: What code is used to represent the histology "cystadenocarcinoma with multiple foci of high grade anaplastic and undifferentiated sarcoma"? See discussion.
The case was presented at tumor conference. The physicians indicated that the patient would not have the same disease course as a patient with cystadenocarcinoma of the ovary. The physicians advised the use of a mixed histology code. However, there is no appropriate mixed histology code for cystadenocarcinoma, anaplastic carcinoma, and sarcoma. It doesn't seem as though these cases should be grouped and analyzed with cases having a single histology of cystadenocarcinoma.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology and Grade, Differentiation fields to 8440/34 [cystadenocarcinoma, anaplastic] because a combination code for the specified histologic type does not exist.
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.
EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: Is extracapsular extension implied by the following phrases: "case staged as C" and "case staged as T3a"? See discussion.
Example: A prostatectomy was done on 6/29. The physician staged the case as a "C" on 7/2 and as T3a on 8/6. It appears the physician is interpreting the following pathology information as unilateral extracapsular extension: "The tumor on the right extends to the inked surface of the gland. In this area the capsule appears absent." Should pathologic extension be coded to unilateral extracapsular extension [42]?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Yes. Use the best information available to stage this case. In this case, the best information is the physician's statement that the case is stage T3a. Without any additional information, the EOD-Extension field is coded to 42 [Unilateral extracapsular extension (pT3a)] on the basis of the T3a stage by the MD. When there is a conflict between different staging systems, default to the AJCC stage.
Diagnostic Confirmation: Is it appropriate to code this field to "radiography" confirmation when a CT scan does not actually contain a diagnosis of malignancy, however, the discharge diagnosis in the medical record of "probable malignancy" is likely based on the abnormal CT findings? See discussion.
10/1/02 CT of Chest: 1) Huge (left) suprahilar mass. 2) Moderate volume loss, left lung. Appearance suspicious of LLL collapse. An infiltrate is seen in the aerated upper lobe as well as pleural effusion. 3) Streaky and nodular changes are noted at the right base that may represent possible lymphangetic spread of tumor.
Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field to 7 [Radiography]. This is appropriate because it was the scan evidence that was used to make the clinical diagnosis.
Date of Diagnosis: If a clinician states his current diagnosis of malignancy is based on a CT scan done at an early date that contained a diagnosis of only "neoplasm" or "worrisome for carcinoma" should the date of diagnosis be the date of the scan?
Yes. Code the Date of Diagnosis field to the date of the scan. The physician's clinical impression upon reviewing the earlier scan, is that the malignancy was confirmed by the scan. If there is a medical review of a previous scan that indicates the patient had a malignancy at an earlier date, then the earlier date is the date of diagnosis, i.e., the date is back-dated.
Grade, Differentiation: Are anaplastic tumors always coded to grade 4, even for anaplastic brain primaries?
Yes. Always code the Grade, Differentiation field to for 4 [Grade IV] for "anaplastic" tumors. Anaplastic is synonymous with undifferentiated. Refer to the example in the SEER Program Code Manual, 3rd Ed.
Extension/Ambiguous terminology: How should the terms "entrapped by tumor" and "encased by tumor" be interpreted when coding these fields?
Each case must be reviewed in its entirety to determine the appropriate coding of these fields. However, in general the terms "entrapped" and "encased" should NOT be interpreted as involvement unless there is other clinical or pathologic evidence to support involvement.
EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined--Colon: What codes are used to represent these fields when the pathology from a colon cancer resection describes 2/16 positive pericolonic lymph nodes and a "metastatic nodule in the pericolonic fat"?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive field to 03 and the Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Examined field to 17. Each grossly detectable nodule in the pericolonic fat is counted as one regional lymph node.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Prostate: Should the size of tumor be recorded as 001 (focus) or the actual size when both are stated? See Discussion.
The pathology report from a TURP identifies a 3-mm focus of adenocarcinoma.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 003 [3 mm]. The rule that says to code a focus or foci of tumor as 001 was developed for use when no tumor size is given.
Primary Site: What site code is used to classify a femur biopsy with pathologic diagnosis of "Ewing sarcoma/primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET)"? See discussion.
ICD-O-3 lists PNET as being site specific to C71._. The pathology report states "some authors consider both Ewing sarcoma and PNET to be the same histologic entity given that they share the same translocation between chromosomes 11 and 23."
Code the Primary Site field to C40.2 [femur] based on Rule H in the ICD-O-3 that states, "Use the topography code provided when a topographic site is not listed in the diagnosis. This topography code should be disregarded if the tumor is known to arise at another site."
An official website of the United States government
Home