Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20091076 | Surgery of Primary Site/Scope Regional LN Surgery--Breast: How should these fields be coded when a sentinel lymph node dissection removes one-to-three axillary lymph nodes and a total/simple mastectomy is done? | Assign code 41 [Total (simple) mastectomy, NOS WITHOUT removal of uninvolved contralateral breast] for Surgery of Primary Site. Assign code 2 [Sentinel lymph node biopsy] for Scope of Regional Lymph Node surgery. Code 41 applies to a total/simple mastectomy with any number of sentinel lymph nodes removed -- as long as all of the nodes removed are designated as sentinel nodes. | 2009 | |
|
|
20091023 | Sugery of Primary Site--Breast: When a patient is simultaneously diagnosed with bilateral breast cancer and bilateral mastectomies are done, do you code the total mastectomies to 40 or 41 or 42? | Abstract cancer of the left breast and cancer of the right breast as separate primaries. Code the surgery for each primary independent of the other primary. For the first primary, assign code 41 [Total (simple) mastectomy, NOS WITHOUT removal of uninvolved contralateral breast]. For the second primary, assign the code for the procedure performed on that site. |
2009 | |
|
|
20091053 | Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be reported when a lobular carcinoma with positive margins is followed 8 years later by a lobular carcinoma near the previous lumpectomy site? See Discussion. |
Left breast invasive lobular ca diagnosed 3/00 and treated with a lumpectomy, but with multiple positive margins; she received no post operative radiation or other medical treatment (unknown why). 10/08 core biopsy of "an area of distortion" near the scar site is positive for invasive lobular ca. The radiologist states "compatible with recurrence at her previous lumpectomy site" on an x-ray report. One thought is that this should not be a new primary because the patient was never disease free (multiple positive margins) and the patient received incomplete treatment. Or should this be a new primary because the tumors are diagnosed more that 5 years apart? |
Abstract the 10/08 diagnosis as a new primary, per Breast rule M5. In spite of the positive margins and apparently incomplete treatment in 3/00, there is no mention of the presence of disease between 3/00 and 10/08 according to the information provided. |
2009 |
|
|
20091078 | MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Head & Neck: How many primaries should be reported when an invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the right mandibular body (C06.9) was diagnosed in 2004 (treated with surgery and radical neck dissection), and an invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the left buccal mucosa (C06.0) was diagnosed in 2007? See Discussion. | According to the MP/H Rules, it appears Rule M12 would apply since none of the others fit and these would be a single primary. | For cases diagnosed 2007-2014: Based on the information provided, the primary site code for the 2004 primary should be C031 [mandibular gingiva, lower alveolar mucosa, etc.]. The 2007 diagnosis would be a separate primary according to rule M7 because the patient was disease free following treatment for the 2004 diagnosis. C031 and C060 are different at the third character. |
2009 |
|
|
20091102 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: How should histology be coded for a diagnosis of "papillary sclerosing carcinoma" with an additional description of the tumor being "nonencapsulated"? See Discussion. | Pathology report reads, "Papillary sclerosing carcinoma." In one case, the results are in CAP protocol format and next to 'Encapsulation of tumor' it says 'No.' In the other case, it is not in CAP format, but the microscopic description says, 'encapsulation of tumor - no.' Is the correct code 8350? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code 8350 [Nonencapsulated sclerosing carcinoma] per MP/H Other Sites Rule H11. The definition for 8350 in the Morphology section of ICD-O-3 includes nonencapsulated as well as diffuse sclerosing papillary carcinoma. When the pathologist states 'No' for encapsulated, that means nonencapsulated. | 2009 |
|
|
20091035 | CS Extension--Ovary: What code is used to capture omental caking? | 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 term "omental caking" refers to a thickened omentum. In the case of ovarian cancer, omental caking is always indicative of involvement of the omentum. The omentum is an abdominal structure for the purposes of CS extension. Assign the appropriate code between 70-73.
When the size of implants is not stated, but operative report and scans state omental caking, code 71 would be best. When there are no size measurements on the operative report or scan or elsewhere, there is not enough information to assign 72. The choice of code between 70 and 73 will depend on the details of the specific case. |
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 |
|
|
20091115 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries - - Melanoma: How many primaries are reported when a patient presents with a malignant melanoma (NOS) and a separate lentigo maligna, both on right chest? See Discussion. | MP/H rule M5 states that melanomas with ICD-O-3 histology codes that are different at the third number are multiple primaries. However, the 2007 MP/H fundamentals Webcast session on melanoma rules states that this is not two histologic types. Lentigo maligna is a growth pattern, not a histologic type. Will clarification be included in the next MP/H rules revision? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, two primaries are to be reported for this case. Rule M5 applies because there is a difference in the histology codes at the third digit.
Clarifications regarding histologic types of melanoma will be added to the rules when they are revised. |
2009 |
|
|
20091024 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: Are diagnoses in bladder, ureter, renal pelvis, and other urinary made prior to 2007 used in determining multiple primaries? See Discussion. |
Per the General Information for MPH, Rule #3, the rules are effective for cases diagnosed January 1, 2007 and after. Do not use these rules to abstract cases diagnosed prior to January 1, 2007. Example: Is a 2006 diagnosis of a renal pelvis primary with the histology 8130/3 and a 2007 diagnosis of a bladder primary with histology 8130/3 "multiple tumors" or is the bladder tumor a new primary because it is a single tumor at the time of diagnosis in 2007? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Use the 2007 MP/H rules for urinary sites to assess tumors diagnosed in 2007 or later. For the example above, use the 2007 rules to determine whether or not the bladder tumor diagnosed in 2007 is a new primary. Use the Multiple Tumors module when comparing a 2007 or later diagnosis to an earlier diagnosis. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M8. The 2007 bladder urothelial tumor is not a new primary since there is an existing 2006 renal pelvis urothelial primary. |
2009 |
|
|
20091045 | CS Tumor Size/CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: When tumor size is unknown, but it is known that both in situ and invasive components are present, how should CS Tumor Size and SSF6 be coded? See Discussion. | We coded CS Tumor Size 990 and SSF 6 to 060 for a case in which no tumor size was mentioned and the breast core biopsy identified microinvasive infiltrating lobular carcinoma and lobular carcinoma insitu. The lumpectomy identified no residual tumor. SEER edit 218 states we must have CS Tumor Size as 999 if the CS SSF 6 is 060. Yet the tumor size code of 990 (Microinvasion; microscopic focus or foci only, no size given; described as less than 1 mm) would more accurately reflect this case. Even in a situation where there was microinvasion described as less than 1mm, the edit will not allow one to code CS Tumor Size to 990 with the CS SSF 6 as 060. Should these types of cases have CS Tumor Size coded 999 or should the edit be adjusted to allow for this combination? | 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.Code CS tumor size 990 [Microinvasion; microscopic focus or foci only, no size given; described as less than 1 mm] and CS SSF6 050 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in CS Tumor Size because size of invasive component not stated AND proportions of in situ and invasive not known].
This combination of codes captures the information available for this case. |
2009 |
An official website of the United States government
