EOD-Extension--Lung: Is this field coded to 10 [tumor confined to one lung] or 20 [Tumor involving main stem bronchus >= 2 cm from carina] when there is no mention of the mainstem bronchus and a lobectomy is performed? See Discussion.
The clinical work-up shows a mass at the left medial apex extending into the left lung. No mention of the main stem bronchus. Because a lobectomy was performed, we assume, per Note 2, that the tumor was greater than or equal to 2 cm from the carina.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Extension field to 10 [tumor confined to one lung] for the case example. The EOD-Extension code 20 [Tumor involving main stem bronchus >= 2 cm from carina] applies to tumors involving the main stem bronchus.
EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent a non-Hodgkin lymphoma presenting with involvement of an extralymphatic organ and lymph nodes on the opposite side of the diaphragm?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Extension field to 31 [30 + localized involvement of an extralymphatic organ or site; Stage III E].
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: How is tumor size coded when there is a clinical tumor size, the excisional biopsy pathology report has a tumor size and the resection specimen has residual tumor, but there is no tumor size provided in the pathology report?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor from the excisional biopsy. If there is some indication that a large amount of tumor was removed at the time of the resection, code the clinical size instead. When both an excisional biopsy and a resection show tumor, code the largest size of tumor reported.
EOD-Patholgic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Examined: How is this field coded when there is no lymph node count in the final pathology diagnosis and the gross description states "four possible lymph nodes are dissected"? See Description.
Patient with kidney cancer underwent nephrectomy and lymph node removal. Final path diagnosis was Lymph nodes, pericaval biopsy, lymph nodes with no evidence of carcinoma. Per Gross description: Received in formalin as pericaval lymph node is 2.5 cm piece of fibrofatty tissue, from which four possible lymph nodes are dissected.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the number of regional lymph nodes examined as 04. This is as accurate as possible for this situation.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: How do we code this field when there is a difference between the size of the tumor mentioned in the gross (i.e., macroscopic description) and the comment sections of a pathology report? See Description.
Path Macro Summary states size as 1.5 cm. The path comment states "largest area of tumor seen is 1.5 cm. However, 8 of the nearly contiguous sections are involved with an estimated 2.4 cm area of involvement."
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the size of the largest area of tumor from the path macro summary. For the example provided, code the size as 015 [1.5 cm]. In this case, the additional sections of tumor described in the path comment do not seem to represent pieces of one larger tumor. The 2.4 cm estimated area of involvement was determined by adding together noncontiguous tumor sections. According to the CAP protocol for breast, Note J "When 2 or more distinct invasive tumors are present, each is separately measured...they are not combined into a single larger size."
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Testis: Should this field be coded to the gross pathological size when the pathology states "tumor dimension essentially the same as testicle, but is not appropriate in this case because the infiltrate does not form a mass lesion"? See Description.
Gross describes a testicle that measures a 4cm. Path micro states "several large atypical cells...These never form a true mass. Path comment states, "tumor dimension essentially the same as testicle, but is not appropriate in this case because the infiltrate does not form a mass lesion."
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the tumor size as 999 [Not stated] for the case example above. Keep in mind that tumor size is not used in analysis for certain sites such as testis, stomach, colon & rectum, ovary, prostate, and urinary bladder. Tumor size is important for analysis for certain sites such as lung, bone, breast, and kidney.
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-Pathological Extension--Prostate: How is this field coded when biopsy findings differ from prostatectomy findings? See Description.
Needle biopsy of prostate clearly states cancer arising in the apex. Clinical extension would then be 33. After prostatectomy, the path report states only one lobe involved with cancer and the apex was negative for cancer. Would the pathological extension then be coded to a 20 to truly reflect the surgical findings?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Combine the information from the needle biopsy and the prostatectomy and code the pathologic EOD to 34 [Extending to the prostatic apex]. The case example above is very similar to Example 4 on page 2 of the Prostate EOD Coding Guidelines.
EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate/Lymphoma: How is this field coded for a prostatic lymphoma?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Do not code the prostate pathologic extent of disease field for prostatic lymphoma. Leave the path extension for prostate field blank. Code the extent of disease using the lymphoma scheme. Use ONLY the lymphoma scheme - do NOT try to code both lymphoma and prostate extension fields for prostatic lymphoma.
EOD-Extension--Breast: Should clinically mentioned "thickening" of the breast be ignored if the pathology report does not mention thickening or skin involvement? See discussion.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Can clinical "thickening" of the breast be coded to 20-28 extension code when there is no mention of the thickening or skin involvement in the pathology report? How do we code cases when pathology reports don't support the clinical finding of skin involvement.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Do not use code 20-28 when there is no preoperative treatment and the pathology report does not confirm skin invasion. The clinical diagnosis of skin involvement was not supported by the pathology report.
An official website of the United States government
Home