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: 11/18/2024 00:25 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20140065

Summary Stage 2000--Melanoma: How should Summary Stage 2000 be coded for 2014+ diagnosed melanoma cases with satellite nodules or in transit metastases? See discussion.

The SEER SS (SSS) 2000 Manual indicates satellite nodules (NOS or less than/equal to 2cm from primary tumor) are regional by direct extension (code 2) and in-transit metastasis (satellite nodules greater than 2 cm from primary tumor) are coded as involvement of regional lymph nodes (code 3). However, CSv0205 indicates mapping for satellite nodules/in transit metastasis (coded in CS LN) was changed to Regional, NOS (code 5). There are no definitions listed for code 5 in the SSS 2000 Manual.

Our staff independently code SSS 2000. Should we code the existence of satellite nodules and in transit metastases according to the current definitions in the SSS 2000 Manual or using the mapping information from CSv0205?

Code the existence of satellite nodules and in transit metastases according to the current definitions in the SSS 2000 Manual. Do not use the mapping information from CS to code SSS.

2014
20140032

Histology--Breast: Please confirm the morphology code for a diagnosis of "encapsulated papillary carcinoma" of the breast. Several articles on the internet lead me to believe it is the same as an intracystic carcinoma, code 8504/2 (our case shows no evidence of invasion).

You are correct in coding 8504/2 for this case. Per the 4th Edition WHO Tumors of the Breast, encapsulated papillary carcinoma (EPC) of the breast is synonymous with intracystic or encysted papillary carcinoma. It is a variant of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

 2014
20140033

Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Prostate: Can you clarify why a prostate biopsy diagnosis of “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” is not reportable while a biopsy diagnosis of “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable? See discussion.

SINQ 20091103 states that prostate biopsies showing “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” are NOT reportable. However, SINQ 20071056 states that “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable. This appears to be an issue of semantics with no clearly outlined method to determine reportability of such cases.

We have two recent cases with similar semantic issues and want to know whether they are reportable.

1) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation, highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma, with quality/quantity insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer.”

2) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma but due to the small size of focus, findings are not definitively diagnostic.”

Both case examples provided are reportable using instructions for ambiguous terminology. The diagnoses are qualified by the words "highly suspicious" because neither diagnosis is definitive ("insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer" and "not definitively diagnostic."). However, we follow our instructions for interpreting ambiguous terminology and report these cases.

SINQ 20091103 differs slightly. The final diagnosis in 20091103 declares unequivocally "not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma." That phrase in the final diagnosis negates the ambiguous terminology. The situation in 20071056 is similar to the two examples above - the ambiguous terminology instructions apply.

2014
20140086

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Colon: Does rule M7 apply here (A frank malignant or in situ adenocarcinoma and an in situ or malignant tumor in a polyp are a single primary)? Can the frank malignant adenocarcinoma be any specific type of adenocarcinoma for this rule to apply?

A patient has 2 synchronous tumors in the ascending colon. The first is grade 3 adenocarcinoma with signet ring differentiation and focal mucinous features (8255/3). The second is grade 2-3 adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma (8263/3).

M7 applies to this case. The frank adenocarcinoma can be a specific type of adenocarcinoma.

2014
20140008 Primary site: If text supports a pancreatobiliary primary with no other information what primary site code would be assigned? C249 biliary tract NOS, or C269 GI tract nos, or C809 unknown? Assign C269 in the absence of any additional information. 2014
20140015 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is there an instruction missing under Rule PH22 of the 2014 Heme Manual that addresses when it might be appropriate to code primary site to C779 for a Stage II lymphoma? See discussion. It appears there is no instruction under PH22 that covers Example 5 (The patient has a history of Stage II lymphoma, no other information is available). All the bulleted instructions are for organ and lymph node combination involvement. Was the 2010 Heme Rule PH31 (Code the primary site to lymph nodes, NOS (C779) when lymph node(s) are involved but no primary site/particular lymph node region is identified) supposed to be listed under PH22? There does appear to be an empty bullet on the current web version.

The 5th bullet under Rule PH 22 was inadvertently omitted. A corrected version of the Heme manual will be posted soon. Thank you for identifying this omission.

In the meantime, please add the following to PH22:

Code the primary site to lymph nodes, NOS (C779) when lymph node(s) are involved but no primary site/particular lymph node region is identified.

 2014
20140063

MP/H Rules--Histology: How is histology coded when a metastatic site is biopsy positive for adenocarcinoma, but the physician clinically states this is cholangiocarcinoma? See discussion.

The patient underwent a PTA biopsy of a lytic mass showing metastatic adenocarcinoma. Imaging revealed a large hepatic mass consistent with cholangiocarcinoma. The physician's impression on a physical exam note was the PTA biopsy was most consistent with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. However, the PTA pathology report was reviewed at this facility and the final diagnosis was not stated to be cholangiocarcinoma, only adenocarcinoma, NOS.

The priority order for coding histology rules in the MP/H Manual indicates pathology has priority over documentation in the medical record. Following the rules in the MP/H Manual, the histology would be coded as 8140 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS]. While this may be technically correct, it seems that intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is often diagnosed as adenocarcinoma on biopsy, but further stated to be cholangiocarcinoma by the physician once other primary sites have been excluded. By applying the rules in the MP/H Manual, cases that seem better characterized as cholangiocarcinomas are being collected as adenocarcinoma, NOS. Should the histology be adenocarcinoma [8140/3] or cholangiocarcinoma [8160/3] for these cases?

When the physician has reviewed all of the pertinent information, and the physician's opinion is documented stating that the histology is cholangiocarcinoma, code cholangiocarcinoma.

A pathology report from a primary site has the highest priority for coding histology; however, there is no such pathology report in this case. We will review the histology coding instructions and add clarification in the next version.

2014
20140027

MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: What is the correct histology for the following bladder case and how do you determine? See discussion.

8/1/10 CYSTOSCOPY -- MULTIPLE BLADDER TUMORS INVOLVING POSTERIOR WALL, DOME & BLADDER NECK AREA. LARGEST WOULD BE MORE THAN 5 CM IN SIZE. 8/17/10 path -- BLADDER TUMORS:PAPILLARY TRANSITIONAL CELL CARCINOMA OF urinary bladder, GRADE III. ONE FRAGMENT OF TISSUE SHOWS NECROTIC CHANGE WITH APPARENT TRANSFORMATION TO A HIGH GRADE SARCOMATOID VARIANT W ITH EXTENSIVE SUBMUCOSAL INVASION & FOCAL AREA SUGGESTIVE OF ANGIOLYMPHATIC INVASION NOTED. MAJORITY OF TUMOR APPEARS CONFINED TO MUCOSAL SURFACE W ITH NO OTHER AREAS OF DEFINITIVE SUBMUCOSAL INVASION FOUND.

Code 8122/3 (UC/TCC, Sarcomatoid). Rule H5 and Table 1 apply.

This is based on the information provided: Transitional Cell Carcinoma with sarcomatoid variant, and Table 1 in Terms and Definitions for "Ureter/Renal Pelvis/Bladder".

2014
20140021 Reportability--Breast: Is an inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor of the breast with metastasis to the lung reportable? Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor of the breast with metastasis to the lung is reportable. Metastasis to the lung from the breast tumor indicates that the breast tumor is malignant. All malignant neoplasms are reportable. 2014
20140080

Behavior--Breast: Is behavior for encapsulated papillary carcinoma (EPC) of the breast coded as noninvasive or invasive?

The pathologist has the final say on behavior. Code behavior based on the pathologist's final diagnosis. See Rule F in ICD-O-3.

According the WHO Classification of Breast Tumors, encapsulated papillary carcinoma of the breast is in situ, /2. Encapsulated papillary carcinoma with invasion is assigned /3. WHO describes "frank invasive carcinoma" for this histology as "neoplastic epithelial elements infiltrate beyond the fibrous capsule of encapsulated papillary carcinomas." WHO cautions that true infiltration should be "differentiated from entrapment of neoplastic epithelial cells in the fibrous capsule and from epithelial displacement into the biopsy site, which is frequently encountered following needle-core procedures of papillary lesions."

2014