Ambiguous Terminology: Why was 60 days chosen for ambiguous terminology?
The Histology Task Force approved a 60 day time frame for ambiguous terminology.
The majority of cases are first identified by ambiguous terminology; for example, a patient has a mammogram that shows a lesion suspicious for cancer. That first indication of cancer prompts a work-up to either confirm or rule-out the cancer diagnosis.
The data item "Ambiguous terminology" is not intended to capture information on this routine method of detecting and diagnosing cancer. The 60 day time frame should keep these cases out of the ambiguous terminology data item.
The data item is intended to identify those cases where the cancer diagnosis is NOT confirmed during the work-up, but the case is still entered into the database. For example a patient who has a TRUS because of elevated PSA. The pathology from the TRUS says "Suspicious for adenocarcinoma of the prostate." The physician only documents that the patient is to return in 6 months for another PSA and TRUS. The registrar would enter this case into the data base because the word "suspicious" is on the ambiguous terminology list.
Multiplicity Counter: Are in situ tumors diagnosed more than 60 days after invasive tumors of the same site and histology included in the Multiplicity Counter?
If an in situ tumor following an invasive tumor is a single primary according to the multiple primary rules for that particular site, include the in situ and the invasive tumors in the multiplicity counter.
Reportability/Terminology--Prostate: Is the diagnosis of "atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma" sufficient to report a prostate cancer if a note states that there is "insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy"? See Discussion.
Date of report is July 2005. One positive specimen of 12.
Specimen 6: Diagnosis = Prostate tissue with a small focus of atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma. Note. There is insufficient cytologic and/or architectural atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy. Negative basal cell staining with cytokeratin... in atypical glands is consistent with the diagnosis of suspicious for adenocarcinoma. In addition, the diagnosis is suppported by a positive staining for alpha-methyl COA racemase (P504S), a recently discovered marker that is preferentially expressed in prostate cancer...
This case is reportable. The diagnosis states "suspicious for adenocarcinoma." "Suspicious for" is a reportable ambiguous term.
The additional stains supported this "suspicious" diagnosis. A more definitive diagnosis could not be made based on this specimen.
Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation: If a diagnosis based solely on positive flow cytometry is reportable even if a bone marrow biopsy is negative, how is diagnostic confirmation coded?
For cases diagnosed prior to 2010
The case is reportable if a recognized medical practitioner says the patient has cancer.
A flow cytometry alone is not diagnostic but it may be supported by either a positive bone marrow or a clinician's statement. If the clinicians statement is based only on flow cytometry, code diagnostic confirmation to 8 [Clinical diagnosis only].
MP/H Rules/Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Colon: Please clarify how to code diagnostic confirmation when there is no mention of a malignant polyp in the pathology report of a familial polyposis case given this statement: "Even if you have only one malignant polyp it is a single primary if there is a diagnosis of FAP. Even if there is no mention of a malignant polyp, if there is a diagnosis of FAP you will use this rule."
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
In the very unlikely event of a FAP diagnosis with no malignancy, the case would not be reportable.
When FAP is diagnosed along with a colon malignancy, it is presumed that the malignancy originated in one of the numerous polyps, even if this is not explicitly stated. Use rule M3 for any colon malignancy (in a polyp, frank, or not stated) with a diagnosis of FAP and abstract as a single primary.
Date of Conclusive Terminology: Is there an applicable timeframe when coding this field?
There is no strict timeframe for Date of Conclusive Terminology. The diagnosis using conclusive terminology could be made any time following the diagnostic work-up.
The date of conclusive terminology is related to code 2 [ambiguous term followed by conclusive term] in the data item "Ambiguous terminology." Assign code 2 when a conclusive diagnosis is made 60 days or more after a diagnosis using ambiguous terminology. Record the date of the conclusive diagnosis in "Date of Conclusive Terminology."
CS Extension--Ovary: Are "non-invasive implants" identified per pathology coded differently than "invasive implants"?
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.No, non-invasive and invasive implants are not handled differently in collaborative staging for ovary.
Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery/CS Reg LN Pos/Exam: How are these fields coded if the operative report does not mention a separate lymph node procedure at the time of the surgery to the primary site? See Discussion.
LUL lobectomy: 1.7 cm apical tumor, diagnosis: moderately well differentiated subpleural squamous cell carcinoma, with involvement of pleural surface. 3 peribronchial LN neg and 2 AP window LNs neg. Stage T2N0.
1. No lymph node dissection or sampling was stated to be done
2. The lobectomy specimen contained the LNs
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 the Scope of Regional LN Surgery, Regional Nodes Positive and Regional Nodes Examined fields using the available information on the case. The lymph nodes can be obtained or biopsied during any procedure within the first course of treatment. A separate lymph node surgery is not required to complete these data items.
Ambiguous Terminology/Date of Conclusive Terminology: If there is an unknown date of diagnosis, should the Ambiguous Terminology field always be coded to 9 and the Date of Conclusive Terminology be coded to 99999999? See Discussion.
Scenario: Mammogram is suspicious for carcinoma, unknown date in 2007. A biopsy prior to admission to reporting facility is positive for carcinoma. Patient seen at reporting facility in June 2007 for treatment.
The purpose of the data item "Ambiguous Terminology" is to flag cases entered into the registry based on a diagnosis with ambiguous terminology. Because the case above was entered into the registry based on conclusive terminology, code Ambiguous Terminology to 0 [Conclusive term] and code Date of Conclusive Terminology to 88888888 [not applicable].
Date of Diagnosis: Can the phrase "suspicious for a primary lung tumor" from a CT be used to code date of diagnosis? See Discussion.
Thorax CT on 4/18/05 states 'enlarged RUL nodular opacity suspicious for a primary lung tumor.' Biopsy confirmation was not done until 8/4/05 because patient declined further work-up until then. Would date of diagnoses be 4/18/05 or 8/4/05?
Code the diagnosis date 08/04/2005 based on the biopsy.
The statement "suspicious for a primary tumor" is not a clinical diagnosis of cancer or malignancy.
An official website of the United States government
Home