System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 11/01/2024 09:20 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20031146 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: How do we code this field when there is a difference between the size of the tumor mentioned in the gross (i.e., macroscopic description) and the comment sections of a pathology report? See Description. Path Macro Summary states size as 1.5 cm. The path comment states "largest area of tumor seen is 1.5 cm. However, 8 of the nearly contiguous sections are involved with an estimated 2.4 cm area of involvement." For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the size of the largest area of tumor from the path macro summary. For the example provided, code the size as 015 [1.5 cm]. In this case, the additional sections of tumor described in the path comment do not seem to represent pieces of one larger tumor. The 2.4 cm estimated area of involvement was determined by adding together noncontiguous tumor sections. According to the CAP protocol for breast, Note J "When 2 or more distinct invasive tumors are present, each is separately measured...they are not combined into a single larger size." 2003
20031153 Laterality/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Ovary: Are ovarian primaries with bilateral involvement always coded to laterality 4 (bilateral)? See Description. Example: "Right ovary with mass replacing majority of ovarian tissue consistent with serous adenoca. Lt ovary with foci of adenoca." No specific statement of primary. Can we assume that the malignancy originated in the right ovary since it is more extensively involved or should laterality be coded 4 because both ovaries have tumor?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

If one ovary is listed as the primary site, code laterality to that ovary. The example above is one of those times when you would code to the single ovary. The issue of one or both ovaries being involved is handled in staging.

Abstract the example above as a single primary with code 1 [Right] for laterality.

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.

 2003
20031022

Surgery of Primary Site--Head & Neck: Is a composite resection performed for an oral cavity primary coded to 40 [Radical excision of tumor, NOS], 41 [Radical excision of tumor only], 42 [Combination of 41 with resection in continuity with mandibles (marginal, segmental, hemi-, or total resection], 43 [Combination of 41 with resection in continuity with maxilla (partial, subtotal, or total resection)]? See discussion.

Example:

Patient underwent composite resection of left soft palate, tonsillar fossa, medial pterygoid and lateral tongue for a primary of the retromolar trigone. There was no mention of an excision of the mandible; however, the procedure included the application of a mandibular reconstruction plate.

 Use surgery codes 40-43 for composite resection of an oral cavity primary. In the case example, code Site-Specific surgery as 42 [Combination of 41 WITH resection in continuity with mandible]. Even though excision of mandible was not mentioned, there was mention of a mandibular reconstruction plate. Since the retromolar trigone is ON the mandible, resection of the mandible is likely. 2003
20031009 Reportability/Behavior Code--Soft Tissue: Is a final diagnosis of a forearm mass diagnosed as "Angiomatoid malignant fibrous histiocytoma [see note]" reportable? The NOTE reads "Angiomatoid malignant fibrous histiocytoma is a low grade borderline lesion with a tendency for local recurrence, but a very low potential for distant metastases." Is behavior /1 or /3? Angiomatoid malignant fibrous histiocytoma is reportable with a behavior code of /3 according to ICD-O-3. The Final Diagnosis takes precedence over the "note." 2003
20031160 EOD-Extension--Kidney: How would this field be coded when the pathology report shows a 20 mm surface neoplasm with smaller yellow metastatic implants on the surface of the kidney?" For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code extension as 10 [Invasive cancer confined to kidney cortex]. Tumor involves the cortical surface of the kidney with separate surface lesions, but does not extend beyond cortex. 2003
20031185 Primary Site: How is this field coded for a mass involving the gastroesophageal junction and lower third of the esophagus? See Description. We have an EGD report describing an ulcerated and infiltrative circumferential non-bleeding 10 cm. mass of malignant appearance found at the gastro-esophageal junction and lower third of the esophagus. The mass caused a partial obstruction. Biopsies were taken from the the gastroesophageal junction and lower third of esophagus. Pathologic diagnosis: Adenocarcinoma. Would this be coded C26.8? Search for a statement indicating the site of origin. If the site of origin cannot be determined, and there is evidence of Barrett's esophagus, code the topography in the example above to C15.5 [Lower third of esophagus]. If there is no evidence of Barrett's esophagus, assign code C16.0 [Gastroesophageal junction]. Either C15.5 or C16.0 would be preferable to C26.8, which is very non-specific and includes GI tract, pancreas and biliary tract. 2003
20031016

Surgery of Primary Site--Head & Neck: Will you clarify the use of code 20 [local tumor excision, NOS] versus code 27 [excisional biopsy] when there is no clinical description of a tumor and the pathology report describes more than one specimen from surgery performed on the vocal cords? See discussion.

Specimen A is labeled vocal cord biopsy. Specimen B is labeled left true vocal cord nodule. For specimen B the gross portion of the pathology report describes a .5 cm tissue portion. Is the term "nodule" enough information to code this as an excision? Can we code site specific surgery to code 20 or 27?

Code 20 [local tumor excision, NOS] based on information from the size and description of the specimen.

 2003
20031156 Histology (Pre-2007)--Ovary: Should the histology "endometroid adenocarcinoma arising in a serous fibroadenoma" be coded to 8380 [Endometroid adenocarcinoma, NOS] or 9014 [Malignant serous fibroadenoma]?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

The best code is 8381/3 [Endometroid adenofibroma, malignant]. According to our pathologist consultant: "Serous 'fibroadenoma' is not exactly standard terminology. I would guess the pathologist is looking at an adenofibroma with more fibro and less adeno and thus has changed the terminology around. The combination of the benign serous and malignant edometrioid is also a bit unusual. Each of the proposed codes is defendable, but I prefer endometrioid adenofibroma, 8381/3, because it puts the tumor in the adenofibroma category (less common) yet still identifies the malignant element (endometrioid), even though it does lose the serous. But anyone wanting to look at malignant adenofibromas would find the case, and we would carry it under the appropriate malignant component."

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.

 2003
20031035 Reportability/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: Does the presence of sideroblasts on a bone marrow biopsy confirm a diagnosis of refractory anemia with sideroblasts?

Final path diagnosis of bone marrow biopsy:

I. Hypercellular marrow for age with trilinear hyperplasia.

II. Decreased iron stores with decreased sideroblasts.

Comment: Although the overall picture is not diagnostic of a specific entity, it is most consistent with an early stage myelodysplastic syndrome which would best be considered refractory anemia at this point.

In this case the percentage of sideroblasts is not stated. Would the path diagnosis of "decreased sideroblasts" along with the path comment of "refractory anemia" indicate that this case should be coded to 9982/3 [Refractory anemia with sideroblasts]?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

For the hematologic diseases, do not accession the case unless there is a definite positive diagnosis. A positive diagnosis, such as "Refractory anemia" must be stated in order to code that diagnosis. Other words associated with the positive diagnosis, such as "sideroblasts" are NOT to be used alone to assume a diagnosis.

Decreased sideroblasts does not make a diagnosis of Refractory anemia with sideroblasts. The sideroblasts for 9982/3 [Refractory anemia with sideroblasts] are characteristic in rings, and are INCREASED to make the diagnosis.

Based on the information provided, this case is not reportable. The final path diagnosis is not a reportable disease. The comment further states that the overall picture is not diagnostic of a specific entity. Therefore, it should not be reported at this point.

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.

2003
20031054 Grade, Differentiation: Is grade always coded to 4 for a diagnosis of Ewing's sarcoma?

Do not code the ICD-O-3 grade for Ewing sarcoma unless documented in the record.

In the TNM system, grade is required to place Ewing sarcoma into a stage group. For TNM staging purposes, Ewing sarcoma is classified as G4. Do not apply TNM rules to ICD-O coding.

 2003