System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 09/09/2024 05:21 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20031205 EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined: How are these fields coded when an autopsy report reveals pathologically involved regional lymph nodes but does not state how many nodes were positive nor how many were examined? See Description. A final autopsy report described widely disseminated adenocarcinoma, probably lung primary. Metastatic tumor in brain, lungs, and in lymph nodes. The Gross description of the autopsy report stated that there were numerous metastases to hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes. The Micro description of the autopsy report did not add any clarification. In the absence of a stated number of lymph nodes, the options for coding number of regional lymph nodes examined are codes 96-98. These codes include descriptions of surgical procedures such as sampling and dissection. How do we code number of regional lymph nodes examined when the pathological examination of lymph nodes was done only at autopsy and not during a surgical procedure?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The rules that apply to the use of pathology reports for EOD coding also apply to autopsy reports.

When a cancer diagnosis is made and positive lymph nodes are discovered on autopsy, in the absence of a stated number of lymph nodes, code the number of lymph nodes positive to 97 [Positive nodes but number of positive nodes not specified]. Code the number of lymph nodes examined to 97 [Regional lymph node removal documented as dissection and number of lymph nodes unknown/not stated]. An autopsy is a dissection.

 2003
20000532 EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined: Should a lymph node biopsy be counted in these fields or are these fields for lymph node dissections only? See discussion. Example: 1) Lymph node biopsy: adenocarcinoma. 2) Lymph node dissection: 4/15 regional lymph nodes positive for adenocarcinoma.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

These fields record the number of regional lymph nodes examined pathologically whether from a biopsy or from a dissection. If the single lymph node biopsied was a regional lymph node, code the Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive field to 05 and the Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Examined field to 16. If the lymph node biopsied was a distant node, code these fields to 04 and 15 respectively.

 2000
20000511 EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined: What codes are used to represent these fields when only a regional lymph node (positive) aspiration is performed?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

With the exception of those sites/histologies that require 99 in these fields, code the Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive field to 97 [Positive nodes but number of positive nodes not specified]. Code the Number of Regional Lymph nodes Examined field to 95 [No regional Lymph nodes removed, but aspiration of regional Lymph nodes was performed].

 2000
20031196 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. 2003
20031073 EOD-Pathology Extension--Prostate: Is extracapsular extension implied by the phrase, "involvement of periurethral or urethral margins"? See Description. The prostatectomy final pathology diagnosis states that the tumor involves the periurethral margin. The microscopic describes involvement of the urethral margin. For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Extension field in the 20-34 range, which implies no extension beyond the prostate. Disregard involvement of periurethral margin or urethral margin, NOS, unless the pathologist or surgeon specifically mentions "extraprostatic urethra" involvement. 2003
20031166 EOD-Regional Lymph Nodes--Breast: Are subpectoral nodes the same as interpectoral nodes and, therefore, regional for breast primaries? Subpectoral lymph nodes are regional nodes for breast primaries. Subpectoral is the term generally used to describe the placement of a prosthesis during reconstruction (under/behind the pectoralis major muscle). That is the same location for interpectoral, or Rotter's, nodes. 2003
20021165 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--All Sites: Is there a hierarchy for using information from clinical tests (scans, radiography) to determine clinical tumor size? When the size on a radiographic report prior to pathologic diagnosis is smaller than the size of the tumor on the radiographic report that is post pathologic diagnosis, which tumor size should be used? See discussion.

Which size should be used for these examples?

1) Tumor size on a mammogram is smaller than the tumor size on an ultrasound.

2) CT of the lung reveals a 2.5 cm RUL malignancy in June. A biopsy in July confirms a malignancy. A CT is done in August prior to initiating RT which reveals a 3.1 cm RUL nodule.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Generally, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to the largest size identified in any scan. Use the largest tumor size for most cases. There is no hierarchy for multiple imaging studies, with the exception of the two situations represented in the question examples.

1). Code the size stated on the mammogram, even if that size is smaller than the one specified on the ultrasound. Generally the mammogram size is more accurate for breast cases than ultrasound.

2). Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 2.5 cm. In this example, the second scan was the same type as the first. Usually there is not that much of a difference in size between the same tests, unless the tumor has an aggressive histology. The example does not mention the histology. With certain histologies, such as small cell of the lung, a rapid growth in a short amount of time is the normal process. The fact that the size increased that much in a short period of time, using the same type of scan, is an indication of a rapidly growing tumor. It would be better to use the size on the initial scan to code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor.

 2002
20000484 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast/Cervix: When coding tumor size, when do you use 997 for breast cases and 000 versus 999 for breast and other primaries? See discussion.

Example 1: Ductal carcinoma found in axillary lymph nodes. No tumor found in breast on physical exam or by pathological exam of the breast, but physician states that the breast is definitely the primary site.

Example 2: Paget disease for breast carcinoma with no underlying tumor.

Example 3: Inspection of the cervix shows no visible tumor; biopsy of the cervix reveals CIN III or squamous cell carcinoma, either invasive or in situ.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field as follows:

Example 1: Code to 000 [No mass, no tumor found, no Paget disease] when a tumor of a stated primary site is not found, but the tumor has metastasized.

Example 2: Code to 997 [Paget disease of nipple with no demonstrable tumor] if there is no underlying tumor and the patient presents with Paget of the breast.

Example 3: Code to 999 [Size not stated] when no size of tumor is given on the pathology report. Do not use 000 in the size field when a tumor is not visible on physical exam or by imaging, but tumor is found microscopically.

 2000
20000429 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: For breast cancer cases, is code 002 [Mammography/xerography diagnosis only with no size given (tumor not clinically palpable)] to be used only when there is no work-up beyond a clinical one? See discussion.

Usually when a mammogram has a malignant diagnosis, the tumor is clinically palpable, but occasionally the tumor is not palpable.

For example, on the mammogram, lesions are identified in the breast. PE--the breasts are palpably normal. Breast biopsies--two ductal carcinomas, no statement of size. Mastectomy--no residual. Should the size be coded to 999 rather than 002?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

In the case you provided, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 002 [Mammography/xerography diagnosis only with no size given (tumor not clinically palpable)]. A known code in the size field should always take precedence over 999 [Not stated]. Code size from the records in priority order as stated in EOD, from pathology, op report, PE, mammogram, etc. (See EOD for complete instructions.)

Code size as 999 only when there is a clinically palpable lesion with no size stated in the path, PE, or mammogram.

If there is a lesion seen on mammogram that is not clinically palpable, a stated size taken from the path or mammogram would take precedence over code 002; however, if there is no stated size, use code 002 rather than 999.

 2000
20031146 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." 2003