CS Extension--Pancreas: How is this field coded for a head of pancreas primary with involvement of the inferior vena cava?
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 54 [Blood vessel(s) major]. The inferior vena cava is one of the major blood vessels.
The inferior vena cava is located just behind the head of the pancreas. The hepatic artery, the superior mesenteric vessels and the portal vein are nearby.
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.
Multiplicity Counter: Should this field be coded to 99 for cases of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP)? See Discussion.
The MP/H rules state to abstract these cases as a single primary. The Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary field is coded as a single primary with a value of 32 (FAP with carcinoma), but the Multiplicity Counter seems to be unknown.
Assign code 99 [Multiple tumors present, unknown how many] for cases of FAP when the number of tumors is not stated.
Histology--Pancreas: What is the correct code for "non-secretory pancreatic endocrine tumor" with positive lymph nodes on excision indicating a malignant tumor? Pathologist indicated it was not an exocrine tumor.
Code as islet cell carcinoma [8150/3].
There are several cell types in the islets, and each produces a different hormone. The custom has been to name the tumors by their hormone production e.g. insulinoma, glucagonoma, etc. Occasional tumors do not produce any hormone (at least one that can be determined or measured). These tumors are called non-functioning endocrine tumors. Most of the endocrine tumors in the pancreas are islet cell tumors.
Ambiguous terminology: Is the phrase "malignancy is highly considered" reportable given that the phrase "considered to be malignant" is reportable per SINQ 20061094?
"Malignancy is highly considered" is not a reportable ambiguous term.
Diagnoses qualified by the phrase "considered to be malignant" are reportable because this phrase is interpreted as "This diagnosis is malignant."
MP/H Rules--Sarcoma: How many primaries should be abstracted for chondrosarcoma of right toe in 2002, of right lower leg in 2006 and right tibia in 2007? See Discussion.
A patient had a myxoid chondrosarcoma of the right toe in 2002. This was amputated and staged as T2 - high grade. Patient had a recurrence in the lower right leg in 2006. At this time he had a below knee amputation. The tumor in 2006 was stated to be similar histologically to the 2002 tumor with pathologic comparison done. Then in 2007 the patient presents with pain in right knee and stump. CT says compatible with recurrent disease, but no copies of path sent. Patient then had an above knee amputation, with diagnosis of clinically recurrent chondrosarcoma of tibia. How many primaries should be abstracted? Is 2007 diagnosis a new primary?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Abstract two primaries in this case, 2002 and 2007.
The first primary was diagnosed in 2002. The 2006 diagnosis would not be a new primary according to the rules in effect at that time (2004 SEER manual, page 11, rule 5, exception 1).
Use the current MP/H rules to compare the 2007 diagnosis to the 2002 diagnosis. Start with rule M3 and stop at rule M10. The 2007 diagnosis is a separate primary.
MP/H Rules/Date of Diagnosis/Behavior--Brain and CNS: How many primaries would be reported when a December 2004 MRI shows a pineal region mass with the major differential consideration being pineocytoma; a November 2007 MRI that shows the mass has almost tripled in size; and the December 2007 resection final diagnosis is consistent with pineoblastoma? How would diagnosis date[s] and behavior code[s] be coded? See Discussion.
Dec. 2004 MRI of brain: Pineal region mass. The major differential consideration given patient's gender, age group, and imaging characteristics is pineocytoma. The differential includes pineoblastoma or germ cell line tumor. These are felt less likely.
Nov. 2005 MRI brain: stable exam since last MRI. No change in size.
Nov. 2007 MRI studies: pineal mass has almost tripled in size.
Dec. 2007 Surgical resection of pineal tumor: High grade (WHO Grade IV) pineal parenchymal neoplasm consistent with pineoblastoma.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Abstract as separate primaries:
12/2004 pineocytoma (9361/1)
12/2007 pineoblastoma (9362/3)
Complete two abstracts when a previously diagnosed non-malignant tumor transforms or progresses to a malignancy. Refer to the CDC/NPCR guidelines for Data Collection of Primary Central Nervous System Tumors, 2004. Malignant transformation is discussed on page 50.
MP/H Rules--Breast: How many primaries should be abstracted when a patient has a mass at 6:00 that showed poorly differentiated ductal carcinoma and a hypoechoic nodule at 9:00 that was excised with no real tumor present there though path showed angiolymphatic invasion by carcinoma throughout the entire specimen? See Discussion.
Palpable mass in right breast at 6:00. Path stated 'poorly differentiated ductal carcinoma with extensive necrosis and extensive angiolymphatic invasion. Focal high grade comedocarcinoma (1%)'. Another hypoechoic nodule was seen at the 9:00 position. This mass was excised from surrounding tissue. This mass was more like an inflammatory mass; there was no real tumor present there. Path report stated "Breast mass 9:00 excisional biopsy - angiolymphatic invasion by mammary carcinoma throughout the entire specimen."
Is this two primaries because of the two different histology codes: 8500 and 8010?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract as a single primary using rule M3 (a single tumor is always a single primary). There was one tumor present according to the information provided. The second specimen was not a separate tumor ("There was no real tumor present there").
MP/H Rules--Breast: What histology code is used for lobular with focal ductal features? Do we ignore the focal features and code as lobular or do we use the combination code for duct and lobular?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H14 and assign code 8520 [lobular]. Ignore histologies described as "focal," "foci," or "focus." This instruction will be added to the next version of the MP/H manual.
CS Extension: How is CS Ext coded for the following?
Rretroperitoneal primary
Cystic mucinous tumor with intraepithelial carcinoma
There is no CS Extension code for intraepithelial ca in the retroperitoneal scheme.
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.According to the American College of Surgeons I & R system, assign code 10 [confined to site of origin] for intraepithelial carcinoma of the retroperitoneum.
An official website of the United States government
Home