MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded for a single tumor with ductal and tubular features in only the invasive component and not in the in situ component? See Discussion.
A breast tumor diagnosed in Feb. 2007 is a single tumor with in situ and invasive components. The invasive component is diagnosed as ductal with tubular features.
The only rule that applies is H9 which says 'code the invasive histology.' Is it ductal (8500) or tubular (8211)? If you continue through the H rules, then H12 does not apply, because tubular is not a type of ductal. So then you end up at H17, which would make this 8523. Which code is correct?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology 8523 [duct mixed with other types of carcinoma].
After determining that the invasive histology is to be coded using rule H9, there is another decision to make in this case -- which invasive histology should be coded? Make a second pass through the histology rules, begining with rule H10. Stop at H17 and code 8523.
Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Esophagus: Is a case with a biopsy diagnosis of "... focal areas suspicious for adenocarcinoma in situ change" reportable if the diagnosis on the partial esophagectomy specimen only includes the phrase "... with foci of high grade dysplasia; no invasive carcinoma identified"?
The case is not reportable.
The biopsy with a suspicious result (suspicious for adenocarcinoma) was disproven by the esophagectomy.
Ambiguous Terminology: Why do the instructions for this field use the term "accession" rather than "abstract"?
The purpose of the new data item "Ambiguous Terminology" is to identify cases that were put into the cancer registry database without a conclusive diagnosis. The decision to accession the case was influenced by ambigous terminology. The emphasis is on accessioning the case rather than abstracting it.
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.
Histology--CLL/SLL: What is the correct histology code for a lymph node described in the pathology report comment section as "phenotypically consistent with chronic lymphocytic leukemia"? See Discussion.
Current rules instruct us to select the lymphoma code for lymph node and/or tissue with the dual diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma. We have a cervical lymph node biopsy with that dual diagnosis, however, the pathology comment states that after immunohistochemistry testing, the lymph node is "phenotypically consistent with chronic lymphocytic leukemia." No bone marrow or blood work-up is performed.
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma. The current rules have not changed. Code to lymphoma because the diagnosis was made on a lymph node.
"Phenotypically consistent" means the lymph node contains CLL/SLL, not some other hematopoietic or metastatic disease.
For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.
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].
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.
MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Bladder: The new multiple primary rule M7 states that tumors diagnosed more than three years apart are multiple primaries. Does this apply to in situ bladder tumors that occur more than three years apart and to an in situ tumor that occurs three years after an invasive tumor?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use the MP/H rules in order. Rule M6 comes before rule M7.
M6 states that bladder tumors with certain histologies are a single primary. It is a single primary regardless of timing if there is any combination of:
papillary carcinoma [8050]
transitional cell carcinoma [8120-8124]
papillary transitional cell carcinoma [8130-8131]
Rule M7 applies to bladder tumors with histologies other than those listed above. If you have such a case, rule M7 applies to in-situ tumors and to an in situ three years after an invasive.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home