Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20071102 | Systemic/Surgery Sequence--Breast: How is this field coded for a breast cancer patient treated with a lumpectomy followed by chemotherapy and then a mastectomy? | Assign code 2 [Systemic therapy before surgery]. The code in Systemic Treatment/Surgery Sequence is related to the surgery coded in Surgery of Primary Site. For SEER, the mastectomy will be coded in the surgery field. The chemotherapy occurred before the mastectomy. | N/A | Systemic / Surgery Sequen | 2007 | |
|
|
20150027 | Date of diagnosis--Diagnostic confirmation: How are the diagnosis date and diagnostic confirmation coded when the pathology (needle biopsy followed by resection) reports GIST, NOS and the physician subsequently states this is a malignant GIST and treats the patient for a malignancy? See Discussion. |
Pathologists rarely diagnose a GIST as a malignant tumor. Per the AJCC, GISTs encompass a continuum in terms of biologic potential, with larger more mitotically active tumors landing on the "histologically sarcomatous" or malignant end of the spectrum. Because the pathologists generally do not categorize these tumors as benign or malignant, the judgement is typically made by the clinician in light of all the clinical and pathologic findings. Unless there are obvious distant metastases, the clinician usually decides whether a GIST is malignant and treats the patient as such.
In the case above, the patient underwent a gastric biopsy on 04/10/2014 that showed GIST. The subsequent resection on 04/12/2014 showed a 4.5 cm GIST, spindle cell type with 6 mitoses/5 square mm. The resection pathology report does not indicate the GIST is malignant, but does identify a large tumor with mitotic activity. After reviewing the evidence in this case, the clinician calls this a malignant GIST on 04/29/2014 and starts the patient on Gleevec.
Although neither the biopsy nor the resection call this a malignant tumor, should the date the GIST was first diagnosed (biopsy on 04/10/2014) be used to code the diagnosis date, since this is the date the tumor (ultimately felt to be malignant) was diagnosed? If the diagnosis date is coded as the date malignant GIST was first mentioned (04/29/2014), this would exclude surgery as treatment for this tumor.
Would this be a histologic diagnosis because the tumor was histologically confirmed to be GIST? Or must this be a clinical diagnosis because the diagnosis of malignancy was only made clinically (by the clinician's review of the clinical and pathologic findings)? |
Code the diagnosis date for this case as 04/10/2014. Code the diagnostic confirmation as histologically confirmed. The clinician is using all of the information available to determine the diagnosis, including the biopsy and resection. |
N/A | Date of diagnosis, Diagnostic confirmation | 2015 |
|
|
20041018 | Grade, Differentiation: Can grade be assigned based on a thin prep if there is no grade in the other pathology reports? See Discussion. | Example:
Vag & Cervical Thin-Prep: Adenocarcinoma, endometrial, high grade.
Resected Uterus and Left Adnexa: Endometrial papillary serous carcinoma arising in an endometrial polyp. |
When it is the only source specifying the grade, code grade from the thin prep. | N/A | N/A | 2004 |
|
|
20150007 | MP/H Rules/Histology: What is the proper histology code -- mucin producing adenocarcinoma or cholangiocarcinoma for the following case? See discussion. |
4/10/13 Partial hepatectomy: well differentiated mucin producing adenoca involve right and left hepatic ducts, common hepatic duct & common bile duct. Invasion beyond wall of bile duct. CT Scan after 1st surgery shows residual neoplasm cannot be excluded
7/31/13 Left lateral segmentectomy: residual well differentiated cholangiiocarcinoma involving connective tissue surrounding major bile ducts. Per medical director, histolgically code to cholangiocarcinoma.
Primary site: Extra hepatic bile duct. Chemo (5FU, Leucovorin, Oxaliplatin) was started 5/1.
|
Code the histology as well differentiated mucin producing adenoca based on the 4/10/13 pathology report.
Code histology from the pathology report of the procedure which removed the most tumor tissue -- this is from the MP/H general instructions for coding histology. We are assuming that the partial hepatectomy removed the most tumor tissue in this case.
Per WHO, mucin producing adenoca is a variant of cholangiocarcioma. |
N/A | Histology | 2015 |
|
|
20150013 | Surgery of Primary Site: What is the most extensive, invasive or definitive surgical procedure when the second surgical procedure performed has a lower surgery code? See discussion.
|
Examples
8/xx/13 TURBT with path specimen (27): Papillary Urothelial Carcinoma, HG 9/xx/13 Bladder fulgeration w/o path specimen (12)
5/xx/14 Segmental Mastectomy(24): Ductal carcinoma with <1mm marg 6/xx/14 Breast Re-excision (23): Residual ductal carcinoma 1.5mm, marg neg |
The code in Surgical Procedure of Primary Site should correspond to the most invasive, extensive, or definitive surgery when the patient has multiple surgical procedures of the primary site even if there is no residual tumor found in the pathologic specimen from the more extensive surgery. The timing of the procedures does not affect the code choice.
Assign code 27 for the first example. Assign code 24 for the second example. |
N/A | Surgery of Primary Site | 2015 |
|
|
20021152 | Primary Site: Can we assume the primary site for "chordoma" is soft tissue if the bone is not stated to be involved? | Default the coding of the Primary Site field for chordomas to the bone where the tumor began in the body if the primary site is not clearly stated to be soft tissue. Bone is often the primary site for chordomas.
Based on advice from pathologist consultants: This is one of those situations where we can be quite comfortable with a default, in this case to bone, not soft tissue. Chordoma is a tumor arising in the nucleus pulposis, presumably from remnants of notochord - thus its exclusive origin is in the sacrococcygeal region, spheno-occipital region, and vertebral bodies, otherwise known collectively as the axial skeleton. Any "chordoma" in soft tissue (with no relationship to axial skeleton) is probably a myxoid chondrosarcoma or parachordoma (extremely rare). |
N/A | Primary site | 2002 | |
|
|
20240022 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology: When should the designation of “poorly differentiated” be used to further specify histology for carcinoma, NOS (8010) as undifferentiated carcinoma (8020)? See Discussion. |
The term “poorly differentiated carcinoma (NOS)” is listed as related to “undifferentiated carcinoma (NOS)” in the ICD-O 3.2. It is also listed in the Solid Tumor Rules for Urinary Table 2 (Urinary subtypes), Other Sites Table 16 (uterine corpus primaries) and Table 19 (vulvar primaries). Are these the only sites in which one should code “poorly differentiated carcinoma (NOS)” as 8020 (undifferentiated carcinoma)? How is histology coded if the only microscopic confirmation is from a metastatic site showing “poorly differentiated carcinoma” (NOS) or “invasive carcinoma, poorly differentiated” (NOS)? Example 1: Primary pancreatic cancer diagnosed on imaging and confirmed with liver mets core biopsy showing “poorly differentiated carcinoma.” Immunostaining pattern was non-specific. No further workup or treatment was planned. Other Sites - Table 11 (Pancreas Histologies) includes undifferentiated carcinoma (8020/3) as a valid histology; however, the synonyms/subtypes/variants do not mention poorly differentiated carcinoma. How should histology be coded for this case? Example 2: Hemicolectomy with cecal tumor final diagnosis of “invasive carcinoma, poorly differentiated” and synoptic summary listing “Histologic type: Invasive carcinoma. Histologic grade: G3 of 4: poorly differentiated.” Colorectal Table 1 (Specific Histologies and Subtypes/Variants) includes undifferentiated adenocarcinoma/carcinoma 8020 as a subtype of adenocarcinoma NOS. There is no mention of poorly differentiated in this context. How should histology be coded for this case? |
Assign code 8020/3 when the histologic type specifically includes the term of poorly differentiated, dedifferentiated, undifferentiated, or anaplastic undifferentiated carcinoma along with carcinoma as terms vary depending on the primary site. When the term poorly differentiated is included in the grade section only of the pathology report or only mentions poorly differentiated carcinoma without further substantiation from a pathology report as in examples 1 and 2, do not use code 8020/3. The histology code 8020/3 and terms may be used for selected primary sites as included in the Solid Tumor Rules, WHO Classification of Tumors series (latest versions), and the Site/Morphology Validation List including Nasal cavity Nasopharynx Salivary glands Urinary sites Colon, rectosigmoid, rectum Esophagus Stomach Gallbladder and extrahepatic bile duct Pancreas Thyroid Ovary Uterine corpus Vagina Uterine cervix (also referred to as unclassifiable in WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th ed.) For sites other than those listed, if the diagnosis is poorly differentiated carcinoma, code 8010/3 and poorly differentiated in the grade field. |
N/A | Histology | 2024 |
|
|
20081081 | Reportability: If a dermatopathologist refers to an atypical fibroxanthoma as a malignant process, but the ICD-O-3 indicates it is a borderline process, is this a reportable case? See Discussion. | "Final Diagnosis: Surface of ulcerated histologically malignant spindle cell neoplasm, consistent with atypical fibroxanthoma. Note: An exhaustive immunohistochemical work-up shows no melanocytic, epithelial or vascular differentiation. Atypical fibroxanthoma is a superficial form of a malignant fibrous histiocytoma." | The pathologist has the final say on behavior. In this case, the pathologist states that this tumor is malignant in the final diagnosis. Therefore, this case is reportable. | N/A | N/A | 2008 |
|
|
20041005 | EOD-Extension--Retroperitoneum: Does the presence of "necrotic masses, NOS" in the blood, which are not pathologically evaluated, affect the coding of this field? See Description. | Encapsulated malignant tumor within the retroperitoneum was removed. Surgical report: "In the abdomen, blood had necrotic masses floating freely and encapsulated a 3-4" mass." No pathologic assessment of the necrotic masses is available. | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Necrotic masses do not affect the EOD-extension code. | N/A | N/A | 2004 |
|
|
20000269 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Is an in situ tumor followed by another in situ tumor in the same location a new primary? See discussion. |
Example: Six months after an in situ lesion was excised from the buccal mucosa, another in situ lesion was excised from the same area of the buccal mucosa with no mention of it being recurrent. |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: Code as a second primary if the second in situ tumor occurred more than 2 months after the first, and it is not referred to as recurrent by the clinician or pathologist. There are no special rules for determining the number of primaries when an in situ lesion follows an in situ. For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules. |
N/A | N/A | 2000 |
An official website of the United States government
