Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20210034 | Reportability/Histology--Endometrium: Is endometrial hyperplasia with atypia equivalent to atypical hyperplasia of the endometrium (8380/2) and thus reportable? |
Endometrial hyperplasia with atypia is equivalent to atypical hyperplasia of the endometrium (8380/2) and thus reportable for cases diagnosed 2021 and later. Our expert pathologist consultant confirmed this for us. |
2021 | |
|
|
20170003 | Reportability/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is epidermoid tumor of the cerebellopontine angle (CPA) and trigeminal vesicle nerve reportable, and if so, what is the correct histology code? See discussion. |
Patient presented to hospital ED and had brain MRI that revealed 3.2 cm space occupying lesion in region of the left CPA and trigeminal vesicle nerve compatible with epidermoid tumor. |
Epidermoid tumor of the brain is not reportable. There is no ICD-O-3 code for epidermoid tumor or epidermoid cyst. This type of tumor is often referred to as a cyst because it has a thin wall that secretes a soft material into the center. |
2017 |
|
|
20120091 | Reportability/Behavior--Kidney: Is epithelioid angiomyolipoma (AML) of the kidney a reportable malignancy? See Discussion. | The addendum final diagnosis on a pathology report for a kidney core needle biopsy included the results of additional stains performed on the tissue. It indicated the morphology was most consistent with epithelioid angiomyolipoma. Further comments in the body of the report indicate these tumors are now considered malignant neoplasms with the capacity to be locally aggressive and they can potentially metastasize. There is no mention of a metastasis in this particular case. | Epithelioid angiomyolipoma (AML) [8860/0] of the kidney is not reportable unless stated to be malignant.
If the pathologist confirms this is a malignancy, apply ICD-O-3 Rule F (Matrix principle) and assign the behavior code /3. If confirmation is received, accession the case using the morphology code 8860/3 [malignant angiomyolipoma]. |
2012 |
|
|
20170014 | Reportability/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a physician statement that a patient has a malignant histiocytic disorder best described as Erdheim-Chester disease reportable? If reportable, should histology be coded to 9751/3? See Discussion. |
The patient had a mediastinal mass biopsy showing fibrosclerotic tissue with patchy lymphohistiocytic foci and scattered plasma cells, followed by a retroperitoneal mass biopsy showing fibrohistiocytic infiltrate. Erdheim-Chester disease is not reportable per the Heme Database. However, the physician specifically states this is a malignant disorder. |
Erdheim-Chester disease is not reportable. Use the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Database to determine reportability. The WHO Classification of Tumors of Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues states that Erdheim-Chester disease is a possible adult form of disseminated juvenile xanthogranuloma with bone and lung involvement; no histology code is provided. |
2017 |
|
|
20010162 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Should the code 001 in tumor size be used for tumors described as having "focal" involvement? See discussion. | Is tumor size coded to 001 for the following examples:
Example 1: Focal adenoca in left lobe on prostatectomy. Example 2: Multifocal ductal carcinoma of breast on mastectomy. |
Example 1 and 2: There is insufficient information in the examples to determine whether EOD-Size of Primary Tumor should be coded to 001.
The instructions are that code 001 is used for a microscopic focus or foci of tumor only. That means that the tumor is small enough that it could not be seen by the naked eye, nor would it be palpable. Be careful with the term "focal" because it is most often used to describe tumor cells grouped or concentrated in one area as in example 1. There is no implication that this focus was microscopic only. Was it mentioned in the gross or macroscopic portion of the pathology report? If so, it is not coded to 001. Was it palpable? If so, it is not coded to 001.
Example 2 cites a multifocal breast cancer. Again, did the pathologist visualize the cancer (was it reported on the gross or macroscopic portion of the pathology?) If so, do not use code 001. Was the lesion palpable? If so, do not use code 001. |
2001 |
|
|
20100039 | Casefinding--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is the 2010 casefinding code of 289.6 (Familial Polycythemia) addressed anywhere in the Hematopoietic Database? See Discussion. |
When you enter "familial polycythemia" into the Heme DM, polycythemia vera (PV) appears; however, the term "familial polycythemia" is not listed as one of the synonyms for PV. |
Familial polycythemia by itself is not reportable. This is a benign condition which occurs within families. Familial polycythemia can progress to polycythemia vera (9950/3), which would then be reportable. The code, 289.6, which is the ICD-9-CM code for Familial polycythemia is not included on the reportable list for casefinding. There is only one ICD-9-CM code for Polycythemia vera, 238.4. "Familial polycythemia" is listed in Appendix F: Non-Reportable List for Hematopoietic Diseases. |
2010 |
|
|
20120019 | Surgery of Primary Site/Scope Regional LN Surgery--Breast: How are these fields coded for breast cases diagnosed 2011 and later when the patient has a simple mastectomy with removal of seven sentinel lymph nodes? See Discussion. | Per SINQ 20091076, the correct codes would be 41 [simple mastectomy] and 2 [sentinel lymph node biopsy only] when the patient has any number of sentinel nodes removed, as long as they are designated as sentinel nodes. Under the mastectomy codes in the 2011 SEER Manual, Appendix C, Breast Surgery Codes, the SEER Note states that code 41 [simple mastectomy] includes the removal of one to three axillary lymph nodes. A simple mastectomy with four or more axillary lymph nodes is coded to 51. Does the lymph node count for code 51 include both sentinel and axillary lymph nodes? Or does code 51 refer to strictly the count of axillary lymph nodes, separate from the count of sentinel lymph node(s) biopsied? | First, make sure that the seven lymph nodes removed were actually designated to be sentinel nodes and not a combination of sentinel nodes and other regional nodes. Code sentinel nodes only when the nodes are stated to be sentinel nodes or when the surgical procedure includes the injection of dye to identify sentinel nodes. If all seven nodes removed are sentinel nodes, follow the instructions in SINQ 20091076 and assign codes 41 [simple mastectomy] and 2 [sentinel lymph node biopsy only]. The SEER Note does not pertain to nodes designated as sentinel nodes. |
2012 |
|
|
20000491 | Terminology: Do focus, focal, foci and chips mean the same thing? | Focus, focal, and foci are variations of the same word. Focus (noun) describes an area or point of disease, either grossly or microscopically. Focal (adjective) relates to the area/focus of disease; an example is a prostate with focal adenocarcinoma. This means that the majority of the prostate is benign and the adenocarcinoma is confined to one small area/point. Foci (plural) describe more than one area/focus of disease. A prostate with foci of adenocarcinoma means the disease is multifocal (several areas/points of disease).
Chips are microscopic amounts of either tissue or tumor. A pathologist might examine several chips of prostate tissue, one of which contains a focus of adenocarcinoma. |
2000 | |
|
|
20150028 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: Please clarify rule H3. The first statement is "Do not code terms that do not appear in the histology description". The second statement is "Do not code...unless the words...appear in the final diagnosis"
One of our pathology labs frequently will state "keratinizing squamous cell" in the microscopic description (histologic description), but only state "squamous cell carcinoma" in the final diagnosis. May we code from the histologic description if it's not in the final diagnosis? |
Follow rule H3 and code squamous cell carcinoma for these cases unless you can obtain confirmation that these cases should be coded keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma from the lab and/or pathologist. Document this confirmation in your policies and procedures.
The MP/H rules were written with input from leading pathologists in each specialty area. Based on their expert opinion, we instruct registrars to code histology based on the information in the final diagnosis. The microscopic description may contain other terms, but the pathologist lists only the pertinent terms in the final diagnosis. |
2015 | |
|
|
20200088 | Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is there an inconsistency between the histologies listed as deleted in the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines and the obsolete histologies in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms Database (Heme DB)? See Discussion. |
While we recognize the Heme DB has been the correct source for histology coding for heme and lymphoid neoplasms dating back to 2010, the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines appear to provide incorrect coding instructions. Histologies 9670/3, 9728/3, 9729/3 and 9836/3 are listed in Table 3 - Deleted ICD-O codes in ICD-O-3.2. While we recognize these histologies have been included in this Table because they have now been deleted, it is unclear whether the Comments regarding their use listed in the 4th column of the Table is correct. For each of these histologies, the comment states the histology listed in the 1st column (ICD-O-3/3.1) should be used prior to 2021. For example, for histology 9670/3, the comment states: Cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2021 use code 9670/3. Cases diagnosed 1/1/2021 forward use code 9823/3. However, each of these histology codes have been obsolete for cases diagnosed 1/1/2010 and later. If registrars were following the Heme DB and Heme Manual instructions (the appropriate coding source for these neoplasms), these histologies would not have been used in a decade. Should the Comments column in Table 3 be updated? Or should a Note follow the Table indicating registrars should not use these histology codes for cases diagnosed after 1/1/2010, and these histology codes have been deleted for cases diagnosed 1/1/2021? It seems misleading to indicate any of these are valid histology codes for a 2010-2020 diagnosis when the Heme DB confirms these histology codes only apply to cases diagnosed prior to 2010. |
Follow the Heme DB to determine which codes are obsolete as of 2010. These histologies were made obsolete based on the 2010 WHO Hematopoietic book and confirmation with physicians. The official changes from ICD-O-3 were not implemented until ICD-O-3.2 Also, edits will not allow these histologies to be used for cases diagnosed 2010 and later. The ICD-O tables were based on documentation from IARC ICD-O committee and may differ from practices in North America. |
2020 |
An official website of the United States government
