First Course Treatment--Liver: Given that agents can be used that are not chemotherapy drugs, how should treatment be coded for a procedure called a "chemoembolization" when the agent used is not documented?
This issue was discussed among the national standard setters and per the SEER website this issue has been resolved as follows: When "chemoembolization" is done but the agents used are not chemotherapy drugs, then treatment should be coded as "Other Therapy." See http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/codingmanuals/embolization.html
MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries: When the pathology report from a FNA or other biopsy states an "in situ" carcinoma and the patient waits more than 60 days for a more definitive procedure which documents an "invasive" carcinoma, is this reported as two primaries?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
No. When the invasive component is discovered as part of the work-up phase leading to treatment decisions, the case should not be abstracted as a multiple primary. In the rare instance when a patient has not been treated and is still having diagnostic work-up greater than 60 days after the malignancy is diagnosed, do not count the invasive diagnosis as a new primary.
First Course Treatment--Melanoma: How and where is the excision for an in-transit metastasis coded if the in-transit metastasis is coded in CS Lymph Nodes? See Discussion.
Excision of skin of scalp nodule reveals in transit metastasis of melanoma. Patient also has lung metastasis and begins systemic treatment. No primary tumor identified.
Code the excision in Surgical Procedure of Other Site because no primary tumor was identified.
MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted when two tumors occur in one breast and both are ductal with the smaller tumor representing tubular carcinoma [variant]? See Discussion.
Right breast partial excision: Two invasive foci, one measuring 0.2cm and the second measuring 0.5cm. Both lesions are ductal carcinoma with the smaller representing tubular carcinoma (variant).
The breast histology table does not list tubular as a type of ductal, however, the pathologist states ductal carcinoma, tubular variant.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is two primaries of the right breast, using the 2007 MP/H rules. For the purposes of the 2007 rules, tubular is not a specific type of duct. Duct carcinoma (8500) and tubular carcinoma (8211) are different at the second digit of the histology code. Rule M12 applies, making these separate primaries.
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].
Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: Can grade be coded from the pathology report for a recurrent bladder cancer specimen? See Discussion.
In 2006 a TURB was done for bladder carcinoma diagnosed 10 years ago. Is grade always coded 9 on class 3 cases unless the original slides were reviewed?
Code grade from the original tumor; do not code grade from recurrence.
If the grade of the original primary tumor is specified, code it, regardless of class of case.
CS Lymph Nodes--Melanoma: If the primary site is coded to C449 because no primary skin lesion is identified for a melanoma case, are any positive lymph nodes assumed to be regional?
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 CS Lymph Nodes field to 80 [Lymph Nodes, NOS].
Although it is in the CS LN field, use the code for Lymph Nodes, NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED when you don't know whether the nodes are regional or distant. There are separate codes to use when you definitely know that the nodes are regional.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How many primaries should be abstracted when a patient has an adenocarcinoma with bronchioalveolar-like features in the right upper lobe, adenocarcinoma in the right middle lobe and non-small cell carcinoma with clear cell features in the right lower lobe? See Discussion.
A RUL lung wedge resection and RML and RLL lobectomies were performed. The RUL resection showed invasive adenocarcinoma with bronchioalveolar-like features. Tumor size 9x.9x.8cm. The RLL lobectomy showed invasive non-small cell carcinoma with clear cell features. Tumor size 4.1x2.5x1.8cm. The RML lobectomy showed invasive adenocarcinoma. Tumor size 3.0x1.6x2.2cm.
Comment: Essentially three invasive tumors and a focus of bronchioalveolar carcinoma were identified in 3 specimens. All of the tumors appear somewhat histologically different. The larger tumors in the right upper and middle lobe were somewhat similar but still appear histologically different and therefore the pathologic staging is done based on all tumors being separate. The pathologic staging for this case is pT2(4) pN0 pMX.
What histology code and what site code are to be used on each abstract?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Abstract two primaries:
C349 with histology coded to 8140 - invasive adenocarcinoma (RUL and RML)
C343 with histology coded to 8310 - invasive non-small cell carcinoma with clear cell features (RLL)
First, determine the number of tumors. There are three separate tumors in right lung in the example above:
RUL: invasive adenocarcinoma, bronchioalveolar-like features (8140, "-like" is not on the list of ambiguous terms used to code histology)
RLL: invasive non-small cell carcinoma with clear cell features (8310)
RML: invasive adenocarcinoma (8140)
Because there are three tumors, begin with rule M3 in the Multiple Tumors module. Stop at rule M11, multiple primaries for the tumor in the RLL (8310) compared to the tumors in the RUL and RML (8140 and 8140).
Now evaluate the tumors in the RUL and RML using the multiple primary rules. Start at rule M3 and stop at rule M12, single primary.
Flag: For cases diagnosed prior to 2001, how is the ICD-O-3 Conversion Flag set if the ICD-O-2 and ICD-O-3 histology and behavior fields are both directly coded, as registrars in this region are instructed to do when submitting late cases, and as a result no conversion is necessary? Is it to 0 [Morphology (Morph--Type&Behav ICD-O-3 originally coded in ICD-O-3)] or Blank [Not converted]?
Assign code 3 [converted with review].
In your scenario above, ICD-O-2 and ICD-O-3 are being independently coded which should yield the same result as converting the case and then reviewing it.
Otherwise, if there is an ICD-O-3 code which differs from the ICD-O-3 code based on the conversion criteria, it will trigger an edit.
MP/H Rules/Recurrence: Is a subsequent diagnosis of an in situ tumor (bladder cancers excluded) a "recurrence" if it follows a prior invasive diagnosis of the original primary cancer made 5 years before?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use the 2007 MP/H rules to determine whether or not a subsequent diagnosis (either invasive or in situ) is a new primary or a recurrence. Do not use the statement "recurrence" from the medical record to make this decision.
When evaluating a subsequent diagnosis and the MP/H rules indicate "single primary," the tumor being evaluated is a "recurrence" of the original primary cancer.
An official website of the United States government
Home