An official website of the United States government
Government Funding Lapse
Because of a lapse in government funding, the information on this website may not be up to date, transactions submitted via the website may not be processed, and the agency may not be able to respond to inquiries until appropriations are enacted. The NIH Clinical Center (the research hospital of NIH) is open. For more details about its operating status, please visit cc.nih.gov. Updates regarding government operating status and resumption of normal operations can be found at OPM.gov.
MPH Rules/Behavior--Breast: Would a positive right axillary node following DCIS of the right breast indicate the presence of a new primary? See Discussion.
How would you abstract the information from 2007? A patient with a strong family history of breast cancer had bilateral simple mastectomies in 2000, after a suspicious mammogram. Results showed DCIS in the rt breast; no malignancy in the left breast. Now in 2007, the patient has a right axillary lymph node removed - positive for carcinoma of breast origin. Comment says, "recurrent breast carcinoma in rt axillary node from patient's known history of DCIS." Is this a new primary? Is this a diagnosis date in 2007? Is the site C509 and laterality right side?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
A metastasis was diagnosed in 2007. The 2007 MP/H rules do not apply to metastases.
Change the behavior code of the 2000 diagnosis. The breast cancer diagnosed in 2000 must have been invasive based on the metastasis in 2007.
MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: If a 1.7 cm LUL lung tumor is not treated surgically, would a 2.1 cm tumor in the same lobe three years later be a new primary? See Discussion.
In 2004 the patient has a 1.7cm squamous cell carcinoma diagnosed in the LUL of the lung treated with radiation and chemotherapy. In 2007, the patient was diagnosed with a 2.1cm squamous cell carcinoma in the LUL treated with radiation. According to the lung MP/H rules, the 2007 tumor would be a new primary. Given that there was no surgery, would the second tumor be progression of disease or would it be a new primary?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
If the tumor diagnosed in 2004 was successfully treated and disappeared, apply the MP/H rules for lung. According to rule M8, the 2004 tumor and the 2007 tumor are multiple primaries. If there was no disease-free interval between tumor occurrences, that is, if the 2007 tumor is still the same tumor that was diagnosed in 2004, the MP/H rules do not apply.
Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is hygroma reportable? See Discussion.
Benign brain guidelines indicate that named tumors that have been assigned an ICD-O-3 code are reportable. However, per I&R: "Most cystic hygromas (9173/0) are fetal malformations and occur in patients less than two years old. If this patient was an adult, they are primarily treated with surgery. Hygroma (used in a general sense) is a response to trauma (i.e., subdural hematoma) and as such, is not a "new growth" and would not be reportable either as a cyst or as a neoplasm. Unless the patient had some sort of operation, I'd hesitate to include the case as a reportable benign tumor."
How is the cancer registrar to distinguish between reportable and non-reportable hygromas? Example: Brain MRI showed diffuse cerebral volume loss and incidental bilateral frontal subdural hygromas (histology code 9173/0).
Reference: I&R 14825
Hygromas are not reportable. This instruction will be added to the next revision of the benign brain rules.
According to an expert in the field, hygromas are not neoplastic. Hygromas are cystic dilations of a localized subarachnoid or subdural accumulation of clear fluid related to an excess accumulation of CSF, typically related to an old hemorrhage that somehow prevents reabsorption of CSF.
Reportability: If a dermatopathologist refers to an atypical fibroxanthoma as a malignant process, but the ICD-O-3 indicates it is a borderline process, is this a reportable case? See Discussion.
"Final Diagnosis: Surface of ulcerated histologically malignant spindle cell neoplasm, consistent with atypical fibroxanthoma. Note: An exhaustive immunohistochemical work-up shows no melanocytic, epithelial or vascular differentiation. Atypical fibroxanthoma is a superficial form of a malignant fibrous histiocytoma."
The pathologist has the final say on behavior. In this case, the pathologist states that this tumor is malignant in the final diagnosis. Therefore, this case is reportable.
Primary site: What is the correct primary site code for angiosarcoma of the spleen with mets to bone marrow C42.2 vs C49x? See Discussion.
Robbins Pathology states the following about liver angiosarcomas: Hepatic angiosarcomas are rare but of interest because they are associated with distinct carcinogens, including arsenic (exposure to arsenical pesticides), Thorocast (a radioactive contrast medium previously widely used in radiology), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (widely used in plastics). The increased frequency of angiosarcomas among works in the PVC industry is one of the truly well-documented instances of chemical carcinogenesis in humans. With all these agents, there is a very long latent period of many years between exposure and the development of tumors.
Could the same apply to the spleen?
Code C422 [Spleen] as the primary site for angiosarcoma of spleen with metastasis to bone marrow.
Reportability: Is a case reportable if a benign diagnosis is obtained on a resection that follows a positive needle aspiration? See Discussion.
Fine needle aspiration of the thyroid diagnosis was "positive for malignant cells, favor medullary carcinoma." Subsequent thyroidectomy was reported as benign.
This case is reportable. The cytology is positive. Report as medulary carcinoma of the thyroid.
CS Extension--Lung: Chest CT shows segmental atelectasis (CS EXT code 40), but patient had Left Lower Lobe lobectomy/Lymph Node dissection with no involvment outside the lobe (pleura and all margins neg). Do we still code the atelectasis (CS Ext 40) over confined to lung (CS EXT code 10)?
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.Assign CS Extension code 40 [Atelectasis/obstructive pneumonitis that extends to the hilar region but does not involve the entire lung (or atelectasis/obstructive pneumonitis, NOS)].
CS extension code 10 does not apply when any condition described in codes 20-80 exists.
Extension/CS Extension--Prostate: Do the prostate guidelines used for EOD still apply to cases diagnosed 2004 forward?
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.For cases diagnosed 2004 and forward, refer to the Collaborative Staging manual.
The 2004 CS guidelines have been agreed upon by all standard setters and have been reviewed by the COC/AJCC urologists.
Note: Do not use the SEER EOD guidelines with Collaborative Staging.
An official website of the United States government
Home
