Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is this diagnosis reportable? If this neoplasm originated in the spinal cord, it is reportable, correct?
Specimen is described as a 'spinal cord mass.' The final diagnosis is 'fragments of adipose tissue demonstrating vascular proliferations consistent with angiolipoma. No histologic evidence of malignancy.' The microscopic description says: Sections of the spinal mass reveal bone, cartilage, fibrous tissue and adipose tissue. The adipose tissue demonstrates increased vascularity with thin walled blood vessels seen with islands of delicate fibrous stroma. The histologic findings are compatible with fragments of angiolipoma.
The neoplasm is reportable if it originated in the spinal cord or is intradural (within the spinal dura; spinal nerve roots are intradural). If there is not enough information to determine the exact site of origin, do not report the case.
MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries: Is this counted as one or two primaries?
Patient is diagnosed with SCC esophageal cancer. Work-up reveals a lung nodule. Lung FNA (cytology) is read by the pathologist as SCC, favor metastatic esophageal SCC. However, the managing physicians are treating the patient as two separate primaries.
If the patient is being managed and treated as a case of primary lung cancer, report the lung diagnosis as a separate primary.
Primary Site--Skin: Should cutaneous leiomyosarcoma be coded to primary skin of site (C44_) or soft tissue (C49_)?
Code cutanteous leiomyosarcoma to skin. Leiomyosarcoma can originate in the smooth muscle of the dermis. The WHO classification designates this as cutaneous leiomyosarcoma. The major portion of the tumor is in the dermis, although subcutaneous extension is present in some cases.
Reportability/MP/H Rules: Where can I find documentation on how to accession malignant tumors in transplanted organs? See discussion.
A patient was diagnosed with hepatocellular cancer (HCC) in 2010, and underwent a hepatectomy, and then received a donor liver. In 2014, HCC was discovered in the liver once again. This likely is a new primary, but there are no specific rules to cover this. There are many odd situations involving transplanted organs, many of which pose reportability and multiple primary problems.
Accession the new tumor in the transplanted organ as you would any other new/second primary. As transplants have become more common especially for liver, lung, and kidney, we are seeing more of these types of cases. We are adding instructions to the revised MP/H rules on coding subsequent primaries when they occur in a transplanted organ. We are also looking at adding a data field that will identify cancers/tumors which arose in a transplanted organ. We feel this is important to track for analysis. Until the revised MP/H rules are implemented, we will look at adding general coding instructions to the SEER Program Manual for transplants.
Reportability--Appendix: Is the appendix the primary site for a low grade mucinous appendiceal neoplasm (LAMN) with diffuse peritoneal dissemination? See discussion.
Patient had an appendectomy revealing a low grade mucinous appendiceal neoplasm (LAMN) with diffuse peritoneal dissemination. Patient now with cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), which revealed metastatic disease in the abdomen, omentum, pelvic peritoneum, peri-cecal, and gallbladder.
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2022
Low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) is not reportable, even when it spreads within the peritoneal cavity, according to our expert pathologist consultant. Peritoneal spread of this /1 neoplasm does not indicate malignancy. It is still /1 when there is spread of LAMN in the peritoneal cavity.
Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: How should the Surgery of Primary Site field be coded when a patient has a lumpectomy and an additional margin excision during the same procedure? See discussion.
Operative report indicates a wire localized lumpectomy was performed. The pathology report includes a final diagnosis for two specimens as follows:
A) LEFT BREAST, EXCISION: INFILTRATING DUCTAL CARCINOMA
B) LEFT BREAST, NEW DEEP MARGIN, EXCISION: BENIGN BREAST TISSUES AND BENIGN FIBROFATTY SOFT TISSUES; NO EVIDENCE OF NEOPLASIA.
The definition for Breast surgery code 23 is "Reexcision of the biopsy site for gross or microscopic residual disease". There is no indication whether the re-excision has to be a separate procedure or can be during the same procedure as the excisional biopsy (lumpectomy). Some hospital registrars in our region believe code 22 is more appropriate.
Revised Answer
Assign code 22 when a patient has a lumpectomy and an additional margin excision during the same procedure.
According to the CoC, "Re-excision of the margins intraoperatively during same surgical event does not require additional resources; it is still 22. Subsequentre-excision of lumpectomy margins during separate surgical event requires additional resources: anesthesia, op room, and surgical staff; it qualifies for code 23."
Primary Site--Testis: What is the prmary site for a 38 y/o male diagnosed with testicular cancer in a formerly undescended testis that was treated with orchiopexy at age 10-11? See discussion.
Should it be coded to where the testis was physically at the time of diagnosis (C621), or should it be coded to C620 to reflect the increased risk for developing malignancy in an undescended testis?
Code the primary site C621 (descended testis). The primary site of this neoplasm is a scrotal (descended) testis. The history of orchiopexy can be noted in a text field, but does not change the primary site in this case.
Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is pseudotumor cerebri reportable?
Pseudotumor cerebri is not reportable. It is not a neoplasm. The pressure inside the skull is increased and the brain is affected in a way that appears to be a tumor, but it is not a tumor.
Reportability--Vulva: Is this reportable? We have begun to see the following diagnosis on biopsies of the vulva with the statement below. The diagnosis is being given as simply VULVAR INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA, no grade is noted. See discussion.
The note explains: The International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD) in 2004 revised its classification of VIN by eliminating VIN 1 and combining VIN 2 and VIN 3 into a single category (see table below). Classification of VIN (usual type) ISSVD [International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease]1986 classification 2004 classification VIN 1 VIN2 VIN3 VIN Note: VIN 2 and VIN 3 combined into single [non-graded] category, VIN Reference: Scurry J and Wilkinson EJ. Review of terminology of precursors of vulvar squamous cell carcinoma. Journal of lower genital tract disease, 2006; 10(3): 161-169
Reportability--Bladder: Is a positive UroVysion test alone diagnostic of bladder cancer? See discussion.
The UroVysion website says that standard procedures, e.g., cytology, cystoscopy, take precedence over the UroVysion test. The Quest Diagnostics website says that "A positive result is consistent with a diagnosis of bladder cancer or bladder cancer recurrence, either in the bladder or in another site within the urinary system. A negative result is suggestive of the absence of bladder cancer but does not rule it out." Would we pick up the case if the UroVysion test was positive but the standard procedures were negative or non-diagnostic?
Do not report the case based on UroVysion test results alone. Report the case if there is a physician statement of malignancy and/or the patient was treated for cancer.
An official website of the United States government
Home