Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20140003 | Surgery of Primary Site/Surgical Procedure of Other Sites--Endometrium: How are these fields coded for an endometrial primary when the patient undergoes a radical tumor cytoreduction including modified radical hysterectomy, BSO, omentectomy, resection of intra-abdominal and intrapelvic implants, and partial cystectomy? See discussion. | When other regional sites (besides the omentum) are removed with the primary site, how is Surgical Procedure of Other Site coded? There is no cytoreduction surgery code for endometrial primaries, and this patient does not appear to qualify for any of the specific pelvic exenteration codes. Per SINQ 20091118, an omentectomy is not coded in the Surgical Procedure of Other Site field when it is performed with a hysterectomy. |
In general, record surgery of sites/organs not covered in the surgery of primary site codes under surgery of other site. For this case, code the partial cystectomy under surgery of other site. As you point out, the omentectomy is not recorded under surgery of other site when performed with a hysterectomy for an endometrial primary. | 2014 |
|
|
20140081 | Reportability/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is primary erythrocytosis equivalent to primary polycythemia and thus reportable? See discussion. |
Per the Heme Manual, Appendix F - Non-Reportable list for Heme Diseases, under Polycythemia, the Comment states that polycythemia is also known as erythrocytosis. Because polycythemia is equivalent to erythrocytosis, can we assume that "primary erythrocytosis" is equivalent to "primary polycythemia" and thus reportable as 9950/3 per the Heme DB? Or is the case nonreportable because the exact term of "primary erythrocytosis" is not listed as an alternate name for polycythemia vera, only "primary polycythemia" is listed? |
Primary erythrocytosis is not equivalent to primary polycythemia and is not reportable. This will be clarified in a future revision. Thank you for point it out to us. |
2014 |
|
|
20140059 | Primary site--Bladder: What is the primary site for bladder tumor biopsy: invasive adenocarcinoma, enteric type favor urachal origin, stage III |
Based on the information provided, code the primary site to urachus (C677). Primary adenocarcinoma of the bladder accounts for less than 1% of all bladder malignancies. Of these, 20–39% are urachal in origin. |
2014 | |
|
|
20140006 | Date Therapy Initiated--Corpus Uteri: How should this field be coded for an endometrial primary when the patient undergoes a hysteroscopic polypectomy on 01/08/2014 (Surgery code 25), followed by a TAH/BSO on 02/07/2014 (Surgery code 50)? See discussion. | The hysteroscopic polypectomy showed multiple tissue fragments with invasive endometrioid adenocarcinoma. The hysterectomy and BSO removed an 8.2cm endometrioid carcinoma with no extra-uterine involvement. | Record 01/08/2014 for date therapy initiated assuming there was no therapy prior to this date. A polypectomy is a surgical procedure for purposes of coding date therapy initiated. | 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 |
|
|
20140022 | MP/H Rules/Kidney, renal pelvis--How many primaries are there for this case? Should we stop at rule M8 making this all one primary (C689) even though there were right and left renal pelvis tumors? Rule M3, which contains laterality, does not apply because there is also a bladder tumor. See discussion. |
Kidney: originally diagnosed 12/21/2011 with right renal pelvis high grade papillary urothelial cancer. Status post right nephrectomy. Then on 01/10/2013 diagnosed with low grade papillary urothelial cancer of the bladder. 01/21/2013 diagnosed with left renal pelvis urothelial carcinoma iIn situ. Path report stated this may represent a hgh grade papillary urothelial cancer – unable to confirm due to specimen size. On 01/24/2013 left periaortic lymph node biopsy revealed poorly differentiated carcinoma consistent with prior diagnosed right renal pelvis high grade urothelial cancer. Neither the bladder nor the left renal pelvis tumor was compared to the previous right renal pelvis tumor. Also has bone mets. |
Abstract this case as a single primary.
First, apply the MP/H rules to compare the 2013 bladder tumor to the 2011 renal pelvis tumor. Rule M8 applies, this is a single primary. Next, apply the MP/H rules to compare the 2013 in situ renal pelvis tumor to the 2011 renal pelvis tumor. Rule M8 applies, this is a single primary. As you correctly pointed out, Rule M3 for bilateral renal pelvis tumors, does not apply because there is also a bladder tumor in this case. |
2014 |
|
|
20140069 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney, renal pelvis: How would you code this histology: Renal cell carcinoma, clear and eosinophilic cell type? |
Kidney rule H5 applies, code the more specific histology which is clear cell renal cell carcinoma (8310/3). Per the WHO Tumors of the Urinary System, clear cell renal cell carcinoma contains both clear and eosinophilic cytoplasm. Eosinophilic is not a type or variant of renal cell carcinoma. |
2014 | |
|
|
20140030 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Bladder: Is this a single primary or multiple primaries? Transurethral resection of the bladder identifies two bladder tumors. Pathology states one is high grade papillary carcinoma (8130/3) and the other is lymphoepithelioma-like urothelial carcinoma (8082/3). Lymphoepithelioma-like is listed as a urothelial type in Table 1 but rule M6 does not include it in the list of histologies and we are not told to refer to Table 1. M8 refers to Table 1 but does not include multiple bladder tumors (C67_). Specify which rule would apply and why. |
Rule M9 applies to this case. Abstract two primaries. M6 does not apply to this case because code 8082 is not one of the applicable histology codes for M6. This situation will be reviewed as we prepare the next version of the rules. |
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 | |
|
|
20140087 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Ampulla of vater: Is this a new primary? Patient has intramucosal adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma of the ampula of vater in Sept. of 2011. In May of 2012, patient has another ampullary adenoma with intraepithelial carcinoma (pTis) and an area suspicious for invasion. This is coded 8263/3.
Rule M14, Multiple in situ and/or malignant polyps are a single primary, precedes rule M15, An invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days after diagnosis is a multiple primary, per the MP rules for 'Other sites', |
Rule M14 applies. Abstract this case as a single primary. |
2014 |
An official website of the United States government
