Reportability/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: What histology code is used for a patient diagnosed with "myelodysplasia" prior to 2001, if a bone marrow biopsy in 2002 is consistent with myelodysplastic syndrome with refractory anemia with bilineage dysplasia with excess blasts and the final impression is "myelodysplastic syndrome slowly evolving toward acute leukemia?"
Patient was admitted in July 15, 2002. Per the H&P, patient was diagnosed 5 years ago with myelodysplasia. Patient had bone marrow biopsy about 5 years ago and then again on 6-10-02. Patient has become transfusion dependent since mid-March. Bone marrow on 6-10-02 was consistent with myelodysplastic syndrome with refractory anemia with bilineage dysplasia with excessive blasts. Impression: Myelodysplastic syndrome slowly evolving toward acute leukemia. Plan: start chemo. 7-16-02 bone marrow biopsy showed acute myeloid leukemia.
Can we assume that the myelodysplasia diagnosed 5 years ago was refractory anemia and therefore, patient's first reportable diagnosis would be the AML? Or is the 6-10-02 bone marrow biopsy showing refractory anemia to be the first reportable diagnosis because the term "myelodysplasia" is non-specific?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Based on the information provided, the diagnosis date is June 2002. The diagnosis is 9895/3, acute myeloid leukemia with multilineage dysplasia (AML with prior myelodysplastic syndrome). According to the SEER table of hematopoietic diseases, refractory anemia and myelodysplastic syndrome followed by AML is one primary.
Prior to 2001, a diagnosis of myelodysplasia was not reportable.
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.
Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: How is this field coded when a patient has a reduction mammoplasty (for macromastia) and within the pathology specimen there is an incidental finding of carcinoma?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code this reduction mammoplasty to 20, 21 or 30, depending on whether or not there was a nipple resection. According to our surgical consultant, a reduction mammoplasty is more like a partial mastectomy than a lumpectomy or other breast surgery.
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.
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."
EOD-Extension--Colon: Is a pathology description of "superficial invasion of the muscularis mucosa in the upper stalk of the polyp" coded in this field to 10 [mucosa (including intramucosal) NOS], 12 [Muscularis mucosa], or 14 [Stalk of polyp]? See Description.
Do we use the highest applicable value because all three definitions are used in the following example? Ex: Path diagnosis: Sigmoid polyp: tubulovillous adenoma with a focus within upper portion of stalk consistent with superficially invasive (intramucosal) colonic adenocarcinoma (see Comment). Comment: ... in the upper stalk region, there is evidence of superficially invasive carcinoma which appears to be limited to the muscularis mucosa and thus would be intramucosal by classification.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code extension as 12 [muscularis mucosae]. For this case, "upper stalk" is a reference to location rather than extension. This adenocarcinoma extends to the muscularis mucosa.
EOD-Lymph Nodes--Colon: Are deposits of carcinoma in the pericolic fat still coded as lymph nodes when the pathology report states, "there is a high likelihood that these represent foci of venous invasion"? See Description.
Patient underwent resection for adenocarcinoma of the rectum. Path final diagnosis stated: "Regional lymph nodes: met carcinoma in 18 of
43 lymph nodes. Pathologic stage (AJCC/UICC 6th edition): pT3, V2, pN2, pMx. See comment." Path comment: "There are additional macroscopic stellate deposits of carcinoma in the pericolic soft tissue. According to the 6th edition of the AJCC staging manual, these should be designated as "V2," indicating that there is a high likelihood that these represent foci of venous invasion."
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Each grossly detectable nodule in the pericolonic fat is counted as one regional lymph node.
When the number of deposits is not mentioned, code Number of Regional Nodes Positive as 97 [Positive nodes but number of positive nodes not specified]. Unless the procedure is documented as a dissection, code Number of Regional Nodes Examined as 98 [Regional lymph nodes surgically removed but number of lymph nodes unknown/not stated and not documented as samping or dissection; nodes examined, but number unknown].
CS Extension/Polyp--Colon: How is CS extension coded for tumor invasion described as "Haggitt level 4"? See Description.
Polypectomy specimen revealed adenocarcinoma of the rectum in a tubulovillous adenoma. Per path extent of invasion was Haggitt level 4. The micro description of the tumor stated that there was malignant epithelial neoplasm in colonic mucosa.
In a 1985 Gastroenterology journal article, Haggitt described five levels of polyp invasion:
Level 0-confined to mucosa
Level 1-head
Level 2-Neck
Level 3-Stalk
Level 4-Submucosa of underlying colonic wall.
For cases diagnosed 2004 and forward:
Use the best information available to code CS extension. The following conversion may be used when the only information available is the Haggitt level.
Reportability/History (Pre-2007)/Behavior Code--Ovary: Should the matrix principal in Rule F be applied to code a 2002 right ovary case to 8462/3 [Papillary serous borderline ovarian tumor] when peritoneal washings reveal the same histology?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Do not apply the matrix principle in this case. This ovarian tumor is not reportable (behavior /1 per ICD-O-3). The peritoneal washings reveal the same histology (/1), rather than malignant cells. Based on the information provided, there is no evidence to support changing the behavior code.
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)--Stomach: What code is used to represent the histology of "mucin-secreting adenocarcinoma, intestinal type "for a stomach primary?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
For this specific example, code histology to 8481 [Mucin-producing adenocarcinoma] as it is a more specific cell type with inherent prognostic information.
Code 8255/3 [Adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes] is not appropriate for this case because "intestinal type" is a more specific description of this cancer and not another type of cancer. There are two broad categories of gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas: Intestinal and Diffuse.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home