Neoadjuvant Treatment/Date Therapy Initiated--Breast: If Tamoxifen has been used since 2000 for the treatment of hyperplasia, should it be coded as neoadjuvant treatment for a 2004 diagnosis of breast cancer?
Do not code tamoxifen given for hyperplasia as treatment for breast cancer. In this case, tamoxifen started four years before the breast cancer diagnosis -- not treatment for breast cancer.
Primary Site--Unknown & ill-defined site: Should the primary site be coded to C809 [Unknown primary site] or C761 [Thorax, NOS] if the patient died following a limited work-up that included on a cytology on pericardial fluid that was positive for poor differentiated adenocarcinoma?
Based on the information provided, code the primary site to C809 [Unknown primary site]. There is not enough information provided to suggest that the primary site is the thorax or any other location.
CS Extension--Bladder: How is extension coded if the bladder tumor involves the right ureter per cystoscopy but the TURB specimen demonstrates muscularis propria invasion?
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 CS extension based on the area of deepest invasion. According to the TNM Supplement, which was used as a resource in the development of CS, "Direct invasion of the distal ureter is classified by the depth of greatest invasion in any of the involved organs." Record the greatest extent of disease using both clinical and operative/pathologic assessment.
Reportability/Grade, Differentiation: Does the term "grade 0" refer to differentiation or does its use as a modifying phrase in the final diagnosis of "grade 0 immature teratoma" impact reportability?
Regarding the term "grade 0" for an immature teratoma, determine whether the pathologist is using that term to describe the primary tumor or its implants. The term can be used to describe both situations.
An immature teratoma (IT) may have grade 0 (benign) implants. Grade 0 implants may affect the prognosis and treatment, but the primary tumor (IT) would still be malignant and therefore reportable. If grade 0 pertains to the primary tumor (as opposed to implants) it is benign, and therefore not reportable.
Reportability--Lymphoma: Is a lymphoma diagnosed on a bone marrow biopsy reportable if the cytogenetics evaluation performed does not confirm the malignancy? See Discussion.
Bone marrow Bx: Marginal zone lymphoma/leukemia. The morphology of the lymphoma/leukemia cells and the immunophenotypic characteristics identified by flow cytometry are consistent with marginal zone lymphoma/leukemia.
Addendum Report: Cytogenetic evaluation revealed a 46,XY male karyotype. This is the normal male chromosome karyotype. Based on the limits of this methodology, no evidence of hematologic malignancy was observed in this specimen.
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Yes, this case is reportable. The cytogenetic evaluation cited in the addendum report does not disprove the bone marrow biopsy diagnosis.
For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, 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.
CS Extension/CS Mets at Dx--Corpus uteri: Is a microscopic metastasis in a cul-de-sac implant more appropriately reflected in the CS Extension field code 80 [Further contiguous extension; cul-de-sac] or in the CS Mets at Dx field code 40 [Distant metastasis]?
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 code 80 [Further contiguous extension; Cul de sac] for CS extension in this case. Endometrium and ovary are exceptions to the rules that only contiguous extension is coded in Extension code 80. Only true distant metastases are coded in Mets at Dx.
Histology (Pre-2007): Is histology for an anorectal biopsy of "Cloacogenic carcinoma (squamous cell carcinoma with basaloid features)" coded to 8124/3 [Cloacogenic carcinoma] or 8083/3 [Basaloid squamous cell carcinoma]?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology to 8124/3 [Cloacogenic carcinoma]. These are squamous cell carcinomas of basaloid type that are found in the cloacogenic (transitional) zone of the anal canal.
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: Is histology coded from the more representative specimen or should the combination code 8522/3 [Infiltrating duct and lobular carcinoma] be used for a case in which a right breast mass needle core biopsy revealed infiltrating ductal ca, grade III and the subsequent right mastectomy revealed a 2.3 cm lobular carcinoma?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the histology using the final diagnosis on the pathology report of the procedure that resected the majority of the primary tumor. In this case, the mastectomy removed more of the tumor than the needle biopsy. The final diagnosis from the mastectomy is infiltrating lobular carcinoma. Code histology to 8520/3 [lobular carcinoma].
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.
CS Lymph Nodes--Esophagus: Is a resected positive "periesophageal nodule" coded as an involved lymph node for an esophagus primary? See Discussion.
Per SINQ 20000846: Each gross nodule of metastatic carcinoma in the fat surrounding an organ is counted as one positive regional lymph node. SINQ 2000846 applied to EOD. Can this concept be used for Collaborative Stage?
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 on or after January 1, 2004:
Search for additional information on the "nodule." Review the gross and microscopic descriptions to determine whether or not the nodule is a lymph node. If it is not possible to obtain further information, apply the downstaging rule and select the Extension or LN code that results in the lower category.
Reportability--Ovary: Is an "aggressive adult granulosa cell tumor with one of two lymph nodes positive for metastatic granulosa cell tumor" reportable?
Malignant granulosa cell tumor is reportable. The case described above is malignant as proven by metastasis to the lymph node.
An official website of the United States government
Home