Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20091062 | CS Site Specific Factor--Head & Neck: How is Site Specific Factor 2 coded when the pathologist describes regional lymph nodes as "matted"? See Discussion. | The primary tumor is located in the tonsil. The patient underwent neck dissection. Pathology report stated there were matted regional lymph nodes. Does the term matted describe extracapsular extension? The definition for site specific factor 2 uses the term "fixed" to describe extracapsular extension (but not matted). For breast, fixed/matted appear to be interchangeable. Would they also be interchangeable for head and neck cases? | 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."Matted" is not a synonym for "Fixed" in the CS schema for Head and Neck. "Matted" is not indicative of extracapsular extension for the Head and Neck schema. |
2009 |
|
|
20091093 | Race--How and when is Appendix D, Race and Nationality Descriptions from the 2000 Census and Bureau of Vital Statistics, to be used? See Discussion. |
For example, if race is recorded as unknown on the facesheet of a hardcopy medical record or in the race field of an electronic medical record, how should race be coded for the following descriptions found in the history and physical or consultation reports submitted by clinicians? 1) Patient is Czechoslovakian 2) Patient is born in Czechoslovakia 3) Patient is Ethiopian 4) Patient is born in Ethiopia 5) Patient is Japanese 6) Patient is born in Japan 7) Patient is Brazilian 8) Patient is born in Brazil Would you code these cases any differently if these descriptions were actually used in the race fields in the medical record or on a death certificate? |
Code the patient's stated race when possible. Refer to Appendix D, Race and Nationality Descriptions from the 2000 Census and Bureau of Vital Statistics, for guidance. Use the lists in Appendix D when race is not stated but other information is provided in the medical record. The cases you provide are good examples of the use of Appendix D. They would be coded the same if the descriptions were used in the medical record or death certificate race fields. |
2009 |
|
|
20091127 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are to be accessioned for a patient with Neurofibromatosis 2 (NF2) who presents with meningiomas on the left and right side of the brain and multiple meningiomas of the spinal cord? See Discussion. |
We have a patient with NF2 who also has meningiomas diagnosed on the left and right side of the brain as well as multiple meningiomas of the spinal cord. Are the meningiomas all one primary (separate from the NF2): C70.9 and 9530/1? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is four primaries. Report NF2 because it occurs with reportable neoplasms. Note: Report NF only once per patient. Per MP/H Benign CNS Rule M4, the meningiomas of the meninges/brain (C70.0) and meninges/CNS (C70.1) are multiple primaries. Code the meningiomas of the spine to the histology to 9530/1 [Multiple meningiomas] (Rule H6) because there are multiple tumors in the spine. Per Rule M5, the meningiomas of the right and left side of the brain are multiple primaries. Code of each to the histology 9530/0 [Meningioma, NOS] per Rule H2 because they are separate primaries (assuming there is one tumor on each side of the brain). |
2009 |
|
|
20091126 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Vagina: How many primaries should be abstracted for a patient with a complex history of multiple occurrences of vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VAIN III) between 2001 and 2008 and invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCCA) of the vagina diagnosed in 2006 and again in 2008? See Discussion. | Patient had VAIN III in March of 2001. She had a partial vaginectomy and then continues to have laser surgery in 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2006 for recurrences. In 12/2006 she is diagnosed with SCCA of the vagina with microinvasion (new primary). Then in 2/2008 she has VAIN III again -- new primary according to rule M10 (more than 1 year later). An invasive SCCA of the vagina is again diagnosed in 9/2008. Is this another new primary per rule M15 (invasive after in situ)? Every instance in 2008 is called a recurrence, but we disregard that statement. | There are two primaries according to the information provided.
1. VAIN III March 2001. 2. SCCA of vagina Dec. 2006 (invasive tumor following an in situ
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the MP/H rules apply to new tumors, which means that there has been a disease-free interval at some point. In this case, the patient has never been declared disease-free (NED) using the information provided in the question. The consistent recurrence of VAIN is typical of this disease. |
2009 |
|
|
20091092 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How should Diagnosis Date, Diagnostic Confirmation and Histology be coded for the LEFT lung mass in the following case? PET shows a 3 cm mass in the left lung and a 2.9 cm mass in the right lung. No reportable terminology in PET. The right mass is biopsied and shows adenocarcinoma. The left mass is not biopsied. Based on rule M6, this should be reported as two primaries. No additional information in medical record. Patient expired. |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: For date of diagnosis, use the date of the PET scan for both primaries. For the left tumor, assign diagnostic confirmation code 8 [Clinical diagnosis only] and assign histology code 8000/3 [malignant neoplasm]. The left lung mass is reported as a separate primary because there is one tumor in each lung. According to Rule M6, when there is one tumor in the left lung and one tumor in the right lung, each tumor is a separate primary. Tumor and mass are equivalent terms for purposes of the multiple primary rules. |
2009 | |
|
|
20091049 | P/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung/Breast: Can we assume that a current tissue specimen is a recurrence of previous primary if a pathologist states that he has compared the current specimen with the slides from the prior tumor and concludes that the current tumor is "similar" to a previous tumor? See Discussion. | The MP/H rule general information section states that we do not accession a second primary unless a pathologist compares the current tumor to the original tumor and states that the current tumor is a recurrence of cancer from the previous primary. In our experience it is rare that a pathologist speaks so bluntly. They frequently hedge somewhat. Are the following statements worded strongly enough for us to make the assumption that the current tumor is a recurrence of patient's previous cancer? Example 1: Pathologist states: Patient's prior lung tumor reviewed. The tumor in the current case (left lower lobe) shows similarities to some areas of the patient's prior left lower lobe tumor. Example 2: Pathologist states: The focus of ductal carcinoma in the mastectomy specimen does resemble the carcinoma in the previous partial mastectomy specimen. (Slides reviewed). |
All pathologists do not use words in the same way. Therefore, we will not provide a list of specific words to accept or not to accept in order to determine recurrence. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, do not base your decision about recurrence on words such as "similar" or "resembles." If the pathologist believes two or more tumors are the same or believes one is a recurrence of another after comparison, accept it. When pathologists believe that two or more tumors are not the same or believe that one is not a recurrence of another, there is usually a strong statement indicating that opinion. | 2009 |
|
|
20091012 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: If the final diagnosis states "see microscopic description," can the micro information be used to code the histology? See Discussion. | In regards to coding histology for 2007 and forward cases, we are instructed to use the final diagnosis, and any addenda or comments associated with the final diagnosis. We are not to use the microscopic description. However, we are seeing pathology reports with a final diagnosis that also includes the notation "see microscopic description" or "see description". Example: "Left Parotid: High grade carcinoma involving deep lobe with marginal extension. See description." The microscopic description goes on to describe the carcinoma in more detail, which includes a statement "consistent with the ductal type of primary parotid carcinoma." Can we use this microscopic description or not? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: When the final diagnosis indicates that the microscopic section contains the detailed diagnosis, use the microscopic description to code the histology. Otherwise, code from the final diagnosis only and not from the microscopic description. The final diagnosis is usually the pathologist's conclusion after consideration of the various choices listed in the microscopic description. The histology code should represent the pathologist's final conclusion. |
2009 |
|
|
20091116 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries - - Colon: Is a colon tumor reported as "recurrent at the anastomotic junction" just over one year after the diagnosis of a T4 colon tumor to be counted as a new primary? See Discussion. | MP/H rules do not apply to metastasis. However, it has been our experience that pathologists and clinicians tend to use the terms metastatic and recurrence interchangeably. The term "recurrence" is not limited to a tumor recurrence in the same site as a previous malignancy. Sometimes it is obvious that the clinician is using the term recurrence to describe a metastatic lesion. When a "recurrence" is located in tissue that is very different from the original primary site, it is easy to recognize that the intended meaning of the term is metastasis.
Example: Patient with squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue with recurrence in the lung.
However, when the metastatic deposit occurs in similar tissue, it is more difficult to determine the number of primaries.
Example when the term "recurrence" is ambiguous: In April 2008 patient was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the ascending colon. At the time of hemicolectomy the tumor was noted to be plastered into the paraduodenal and peripancreatic area. Patient received one dose of adjuvant chemo and then discontinued treatment. In May 2009 the patient was found to have adenocarcinoma in the transverse colon. Per the pathology report the diagnosis for segmental resection at that time showed colonic adenocarcinoma. Tumor location: tumor appears recurrent at anastomotic junction. Abdominal wall mass showed metastatic adenocarcinoma.
One has to wonder if the pathologist found a metastatic nodule at the anastomotic site and called it "recurrent." It is unlikely that the pathologist will compare this specimen to the previous tumor, having already diagnosed it as "recurrent."
|
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M4 applies to the example of adenocarcinoma of ascending colon diagnosed in 2008 followed by adenocarcinoma of transverse colon diagnosed in 2009. When a colon resection has taken place, the original primary site is no longer present. A colon resection usually includes a portion of uninvolved colon on either side of the tumor. A tumor diagnosed at the anastomotic junction cannot be located in the same site as the previous tumor. Use of the term "recurrent" in this case is not synonymous with "metastatic." Apply the MP/H rules. | 2009 |
|
|
20091017 | Primary site--Esophagus: How is primary site coded for a tumor arising in a segment of the esophagus that was reconstructed using a segment of the colon? See Discussion. |
A patient had a ruptured esophagus 25 years ago and had a segment of colon removed and transplanted to serve as esophagus. In 2007, the patient was diagnosed with carcinoma in a polyp by endoscopic biopsy of the transplanted 'esophagus'. What is the primary site code? Is this the same site schema to be used for Collaborative staging and surgery coding? |
Code the primary site esophagus, NOS [C159]. Use the surgery codes and collaborative staging schema for esophagus. Document the unusual nature of this case in text fields. |
2009 |
|
|
20091048 | Surgery of Primary Site--Lymphoma/Soft Tissue: How is this field coded for an excision of a neck mass that found lymphoma in soft tissue (C49.0)? See Discussion. | CT scan showed soft tissue mass in the retropharynx. 9/23/2008 Laryngoscopy with biopsy taken of left tonsil and left base of tongue and random biopsies of nasopharynx; FNA of left neck. Path stated left tonsil, squamous papilloma. Left base of tongue, no significant histopathology. Nasopharynx biopsies, compatible with tonsillar tissue. Pretracheal lymph node biopsies, mild reactive lymphoid hyperplasia. 9/30/2008 Excision of left neck mass with limited deep jugular chain lymph node dissection. Path stated lymph node left jugular biopsy, no tumor seen. Soft tissue, left neck biopsy, malignant B cell lymphoma with plasmacytoid differentiation. Addendum from consult: favor a diagnosis of a marginal zone lymphoma. Per the gross description, the specimen was fibrofatty connective tissue in which there is a tumor infiltrate. | Assign code 26 [partial resection]. Use the surgery codes that apply to the primary site. See page C-597 of the 2007 SEER manual for surgery of primary site codes applicable to primary sites of soft tissue coded to C490 - C499. | 2009 |
An official website of the United States government
