Ambiguous Terminology: Why was 60 days chosen for ambiguous terminology?
The Histology Task Force approved a 60 day time frame for ambiguous terminology.
The majority of cases are first identified by ambiguous terminology; for example, a patient has a mammogram that shows a lesion suspicious for cancer. That first indication of cancer prompts a work-up to either confirm or rule-out the cancer diagnosis.
The data item "Ambiguous terminology" is not intended to capture information on this routine method of detecting and diagnosing cancer. The 60 day time frame should keep these cases out of the ambiguous terminology data item.
The data item is intended to identify those cases where the cancer diagnosis is NOT confirmed during the work-up, but the case is still entered into the database. For example a patient who has a TRUS because of elevated PSA. The pathology from the TRUS says "Suspicious for adenocarcinoma of the prostate." The physician only documents that the patient is to return in 6 months for another PSA and TRUS. The registrar would enter this case into the data base because the word "suspicious" is on the ambiguous terminology list.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: How is this field coded for a patient with ureter specimen with "high grade urothelial carcinoma with adenocarcinoma differentiation" and a TURB specimen with "urothelial ca, high grade, a biphasic pattern with cautery-distorted urothelial carcinoma and adenocarcinoma"?
According to the MP/H rules, code histology to 8120/3 [urothelial carcinoma] for cases diagnosed 2007 or later. The term "glandular differentiation" is equivalent to adenocarcinoma differentiation. 8120/3 [urothelial carcinoma] would be the best way to code a "biphasic pattern with cautery-distorted urothelial carcinoma and adenocarcinoma" according to a pathologist consultant.
The steps used to arrive at this decision are as follows:
Go to the Urinary Histo rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual.
Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS ABSTRACTED AS A SINGLE PRIMARY module, rule H9. Code the histology to 8120 [transitional cell/urothelial carcinoma] when there is transitional cell carcinoma with glandular differentiation.
Histology--Corpus uteri: Because coding a pathology final diagnosis of "serous carcinoma" for an endometrial primary to 8441/3 triggers the site/histology error in the SEER Edits, should histology be coded to 8010/3 [Carcinoma, NOS] instead?
Assign histology code 8441 [serous carcinoma] and override the edit. Endometrium with serous carcinoma is NOT one of the "impossible" site / histology combinations.
Histology/Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are these fields coded if a bone marrow biopsy demonstrates diffuse infiltration by B-cell lymphoma/leukemia which consists of medium-sized cells with Burkitt morphology and the flow cytometry has no evidence of leukemia or lymphoma?
This case should be accessioned as one primary. Per Rule PH26, code the primary site to bone marrow (C421) when lymphoma is present only in the bone marrow. (We assumed all available physical exams, scans, and other work-up were negative for lymph node, tissue, or organ involvement.) Histology is coded to 9680/3 [Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)]. Under the Alternate Names section of the Heme DB, a synonym for DLBCL is B-cell lymphoma, unclassifiable, with features intermediate between diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: For cases diagnosed in 2005, if a specimen contains an invasive 4.5 cm lobular carcinoma of the right breast and also has a tiny focus of intraepidermal tumors cells [Paget disease of nipple], how many cases should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
There are two primaries in this example:
1. Invasive lobular carcinoma [8520/3]
2. In situ Paget disease of nipple [8540/2].
There is no combination code for lobular carcinoma and Paget disease.
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.
Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a 9/30/10 biopsy diagnoses follicular lymphoma, grade 1 and the patient is subsequently diagnosed on a 10/11/10 biopsy with large B-cell lymphoma which is stated to be a transformation of the prior lymphoma?
Per Rule M11, this case is to be accessioned as two primaries; follicular lymphoma, grade 1 [9695/3] and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) [9680/3]. The case represents a chronic neoplasm (follicular lymphoma, grade) and an acute neoplasm (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma) diagnosed within 21 days of one another and there is documentation of two biopsies, one confirming the chronic disease and the other confirming the acute disease.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
Reportability: Is a "pleomorphic hyalinizing angiectatic tumor of soft parts (PHAT)" reportable if the case has a TNM stage assigned and is stated by the pathologist to be a rare intermediate grade sarcoma?
Pleomorphic hyalinizing angiectatic tumors of the soft parts are not reportable.
According to our pathologist consultant, PHAT is a borderline malignancy (/1). While the true nature of these tumors is under debate (reactive vs. neoplastic), so far none have metastasized.
Recurrence (Pre-2007)--Colon: When there is no statement of recurrence on the abstract, is a colon tumor at the anastomosis site a recurrence of the previous colon cancer or a new primary?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
If the cancer at the anastamosis site is more than two months after the previous colon cancer, abstract as a separate primary.
If the cancer at the anastamosis site is within two months of the original diagnosis and the histologies are the same, do not abstract as a separate primary.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home