Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation: If a diagnosis based solely on positive flow cytometry is reportable even if a bone marrow biopsy is negative, how is diagnostic confirmation coded?
For cases diagnosed prior to 2010
The case is reportable if a recognized medical practitioner says the patient has cancer.
A flow cytometry alone is not diagnostic but it may be supported by either a positive bone marrow or a clinician's statement. If the clinicians statement is based only on flow cytometry, code diagnostic confirmation to 8 [Clinical diagnosis only].
Primary Site: For malignant gastrointestinal tumors (GISTs), how should the primary site be coded and which Collaborative Stage and TNM staging schemes should be used for disease found in the stomach, small intestine or other locations?
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Code the primary site to the location where the GIST originated. If the primary site cannot be determined, assign code C809 [Unknown primary site].
GIST of gastrointestinal hollow viscera cannot be staged in TNM.
In Collaborative Staging, use the stomach scheme for GIST of the stomach. Use the small intestine scheme for GIST of the small intestine. For GIST of other primary sites, use the CS scheme for the specific site.
Histology--Melanoma: How is a "malignant melanoma arising in a melanocytic nevus" coded?
The histology code is 8720/3 [malignant melanoma, NOS].
There is no specific code for melanoma arising in melanocytic nevus. According to our pathologist consultant, this is likely because nevi are so common, melanoma arising in association with them is common and appears to have no bearing on prognosis or treatment. Most pathologists do not include the nevus in the diagnosis of melanoma, even when they see it.
Code melanomas arising in melanocytic nevi to the appropriate melanoma code, probably 8720, 8721, or 8743 in most cases.
Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Esophagus: Is a case with a biopsy diagnosis of "... focal areas suspicious for adenocarcinoma in situ change" reportable if the diagnosis on the partial esophagectomy specimen only includes the phrase "... with foci of high grade dysplasia; no invasive carcinoma identified"?
The case is not reportable.
The biopsy with a suspicious result (suspicious for adenocarcinoma) was disproven by the esophagectomy.
CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: Given that the CS Manual instruction is to code the highest PSA value recorded in the medical record, can a PSA value obtained a year prior to admission be used to code the SSF 1 and SSF2 fields?
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.
The PSA recorded in CS SSF 1 and 2 must be documented in the medical record. Record the highest PSA value prior to diagnostic biopsy or treatment. If the highest PSA value documented in the medical record is from the previous year, record it.
CS Tumor Size: Is a measured "area" equivalent to a tumor, mass or lesion size? See Discussion.
Collaborative Stage manual, page 26
Rule 4a: "always code size of the primary tumor, not size of the polyp, ulcer, cyst or distant metastasis."
Rule 4e: Additional rule for breast primaries: Example: Duct carcinoma in situ covering a 1.9 cm area with focal areas of invasive ductal carcinoma. Record the tumor size as 1.9 cm.
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.In general, a measured area is not equivalent to a tumor size.
Do not apply the rule related to the breast example to other primary sites. This example in the CS manual pertains to coding tumor size for breast primaries when the size of the invasive component is not stated. In the example, the area involved with duct carcinoma in situ is the only measurement available. The size of the invasive component was not given.
Primary Site/CS Extension--Lymphoma: How are these fields coded for a lymphoma found in the spleen and retroperitoneal lymph nodes? See Discussion.
A patient presents with a 6-month history of night sweats, low grade fever and significant weight loss. Physical exam reveals no palpable lymph nodes, tender abdomen and splenomegaly. Patient undergoes an exploratory laparotomy with splenectomy and dissection of two retroperitoneal lymph nodes. Spleen and both lymph nodes were positive for small cleaved-cell lymphoma, high grade.
Code the primary site to spleen.
Code CS extension as 22 [involvement of spleen plus lymph nodes below the diaphragm]. This gives it a stage IIS.
Spleen is an extranodal (not extralymphatic) site.
The retroperitoneal lymph nodes are located below the diaphragm.
Reportability/Terminology--Prostate: Is the diagnosis of "atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma" sufficient to report a prostate cancer if a note states that there is "insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy"? See Discussion.
Date of report is July 2005. One positive specimen of 12.
Specimen 6: Diagnosis = Prostate tissue with a small focus of atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma. Note. There is insufficient cytologic and/or architectural atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy. Negative basal cell staining with cytokeratin... in atypical glands is consistent with the diagnosis of suspicious for adenocarcinoma. In addition, the diagnosis is suppported by a positive staining for alpha-methyl COA racemase (P504S), a recently discovered marker that is preferentially expressed in prostate cancer...
This case is reportable. The diagnosis states "suspicious for adenocarcinoma." "Suspicious for" is a reportable ambiguous term.
The additional stains supported this "suspicious" diagnosis. A more definitive diagnosis could not be made based on this specimen.
Date of Diagnosis: Can the phrase "suspicious for a primary lung tumor" from a CT be used to code date of diagnosis? See Discussion.
Thorax CT on 4/18/05 states 'enlarged RUL nodular opacity suspicious for a primary lung tumor.' Biopsy confirmation was not done until 8/4/05 because patient declined further work-up until then. Would date of diagnoses be 4/18/05 or 8/4/05?
Code the diagnosis date 08/04/2005 based on the biopsy.
The statement "suspicious for a primary tumor" is not a clinical diagnosis of cancer or malignancy.
Grade, Differentiation: How is grade coded for cases using the FNCLCC (Federation Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre Ie Cancer) system? See Discussion.
Is FNCLCC a recognized system in the United States? Tongue was the primary site for the case we saw that used FNCLCC.
Do not code the data item Grade based on the FNCLCC grade. You may record the FNCLCC grade in a text field.
An official website of the United States government
Home