Primary Site--Head & Neck: What site code is used to represent the following head and neck primary where there is not a clear statement of primary site? See discussion.
6/29/02: PE: 2-3 cm mass in the posterior pharynx that seems to arise from the right side of back of tongue.
6/29/02 CT soft tissue of neck: 3 cm right sided oropharyngeal mass, possibly arising from right tongue mass. There is near occlusion of airway at this level.
7/3/02 Excision of oropharyngeal tumor: Palpated mass could clearly be felt coming off the right lateral tongue in approximately the mid portion of the tongue near the tonsillar base.
Code the Primary Site field to C02.9 [tongue, NOS], based on the information provided.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: For a path diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ, cribriform type with apocrine features, does the term "apocrine" modify the term cribriform or does it represent another type of ductal carcinoma in situ? See discussion.
It can be difficult to determine if two terms mentioned in a pathology report are describing different aspects of the same morphology or if the two terms are describing two different morphologies.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8401/2 [Apocrine carcinoma in situ]. According to our pathologist consultant "Because apocrine is the more unusual tumor, and pulling it out of the cribriform category keeps the latter a little cleaner (because most cribriform ductal carcinoma in situ is not particularly apocrine), I am inclined to code to the histology to apocrine ductal carcinoma in situ."
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.
Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: Does the presence of axillary lymph node(s) in a "simple mastectomy" specimen impact the coding of the Surgery of Primary Site field for breast primaries?
Yes. Determine whether there is, in fact, at least a portion of axillary tissue present. If axillary lymph nodes (not internal mammary nodes) are present in the specimen, code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 51 [Modified Radical Mastectomy WITHOUT removal of uninvolved contralateral breast]. If there are no axillary lymph nodes present in the specimen, code the Surgery to Primary Site field to 41 [Total (simple) mastectomy WITHOUT removal of uninvolved contralateral breast].
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can you code the tumor size if you have the aggregate size given for two or more tumor masses?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No. Never code the aggregate size in the Size of Primary Tumor field when the pieces removed come from TWO OR MORE tumors. If there is a clinical statement regarding the size of two or more tumors, code this field to the size of the largest tumor.
The aggregate size can only be used to code the Size of Primary Tumor field when the PATHOLOGIST estimates the size of the tumor from the pieces of ONE tumor removed by the surgeon.
Other Therapy: What code is used to represent treatment with "Epithilone" or "Epothilone"?
Code the Other Cancer-Directed Therapy field to 2 [Other experimental cancer-directed therapy (not included elsewhere)], until the exact mechanism of action is determined for this drug. This drug is in phase I clinical trials. It has a similar action to Taxol, but is derived from a different source.
Date of Diagnosis: How do you code this field when the pathologic confirmation is delayed for 2 months because the clinician decides to "watch and see what happens" to a CT identified mass thought to be either a "metastasis from a previously diagnosed malignancy or a new primary"?
Code the Date of Diagnosis field to the date of the scan. This is the earliest date that a recognized medical practitioner said the patient had cancer. The diagnosis on the CT scan was a malignancy. The only question was whether the mass on the scan was metastatic or a primary.
Grade, Differentiation--Breast: Should the Bloom-Richardson (BR) grade (low, intermediate, high) have a higher priority than terminology (i.e., well differentiated)? See discussion.
2. Poorly differentiated but grade II/III. Microscopic comment: Slides show infiltrating ca which is P.D. in that it forms no tubules, but is grade 2 out of 3 in the modified BR scheme. It is ductal type with large moderately pleomorphic tumor cells displaying few mitoses.
3. Invasive moderately differentiated duct cell carcinoma with the following features: Modified BR grade: III/III (2+3+3=8).
For cases diagnosed prior to 2004:
Code the example cases as follows:
1. Grade 2. Histologic grade terminology ("intermediate") has the highest priority.
2. Grade 3. Terminology ("poorly differentiated") has the highest priority.
3. Grade 2. Histologic grade terminology "moderately differentiated" has priority.
EOD-Extension--Colon: What code is used to represent this field for a mid-ascending colon primary that invades through muscularis propria and into subserosal fibroadipose tissue that also presents with a "separate serosal nodule" of carcinoma within cecum that is consistent with a tumor implant (cT3, N0, M1)?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [Metastasis], because the nodule of carcinoma in the cecum is not contiguous with the mid-ascending primary colon tumor.
EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: In the absence of a clear surgical or pathologic description of how the salivary gland involvement relates to the head and neck primary, do we code the involvement as direct extension, further extension or metastasis? See discussion.
A composite resection of tonsillar mass and a modified radical neck dissection is performed. According to the pathology report: Squamous cell carcinoma involvement of tonsil with invasion of skeletal muscle. A separate specimen labeled "tumor" indicates a salivary gland is also involved with tumor. Neck dissection: 1 lymph node with metastasis.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
In the absence of a clear statement that the gland was involved by direct extension, code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [Metastasis]. In this case, the salivary gland tumor was described as a "separate specimen" that contained the salivary gland. The extension does not appear to be contiguous for this case.
If the salivary gland involvement had been by direct extension, which would be assumed if there had been contiguous involvement of the gland with the primary site, then code the EOD-Extension field to 80 [Further extension]. If there had been direct extension, the surgeon probably would not have dissected through the tumor. The resection specimens would have been contiguous.
Ambiguous Terminology/Reportability: How should the expressions "suspicious for but not diagnostic of" and "suspicious for the possibility of early invasive adenocarcinoma" be interpreted for reportability? Would the interpretation be different depending on the primary site?
For reportability, interpret "suspicious for but not diagnostic of" as NOT diagnostic of cancer.
The phrase "suspicious for the possibility of early invasive adenocarcinoma" may indicate that the case is in situ. If no further information is available, this is not reportable.
The site of the cancer diagnosis does not change the interpretation.
An official website of the United States government
Home