Surgery of Primary Site/First Course Treatment--Liver: If disease progression is so rapid that the initial therapy plan is changed before patient receives any therapy, would "no therapy" be the first course? See discussion.
Patient was diagnosed with liver cancer on 8/23 and on 9/6 a hepatectomy was recommended. However, patient was hospitalized on 9/19 with ascites. Patient underwent embolization instead of a hepatectomy during that admission.
Code the "embolization" (or hepatic artery embolization, HAE) in Surgery of Primary Site. Assign code 10 [local tumor destruction, NOS].
The embolization is coded as first course of therapy for this case because it seems that this patient was not adequately staged until 9/19 -- there is no indication on this case of the stage of disease in August or early September. Furthermore, no treatment was started before the embolization. Therefore, the ascites is not "progression of disease" in this case -- it is taken into account as part of the initial stage of disease.
This procedure was previously coded as other therapy, experimental. Code as surgery as of July 2005.
Histology (Pre-2007)/Terminology: Are "pattern", "architecture", and "architectural pattern" terms that indicate a majority of tumor?
For tumors diagnosed 2004 to 2006:
The terminology "Architectural pattern: ____________," when used in the final pathology diagnosis, indicates a subtype that can be coded. This type of format in a pathology report is based on a College of American Pathologists (CAP) protocol. Disregard "pattern" and "architecture" when not used in accordance with the CAP protocol. See www.cap.org for cancer protocols.
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.
Date of Diagnosis: How do you code this field when the pathologic confirmation is delayed for 2 months because the clinician decides to "watch and see what happens" to a CT identified mass thought to be either a "metastasis from a previously diagnosed malignancy or a new primary"?
Code the Date of Diagnosis field to the date of the scan. This is the earliest date that a recognized medical practitioner said the patient had cancer. The diagnosis on the CT scan was a malignancy. The only question was whether the mass on the scan was metastatic or a primary.
EOD-Extension--Melanoma: Is "erosion" synonymous with "ulceration" for melanoma cases?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No, do not interpret the term "erosion" as a synonym for "ulceration" when coding the EOD-Extension field for melanoma. According to AJCC's melanoma curator, erosion is not necessarily the same as ulceration.
Histology: How do we code this field when a less representative specimen has a more specific morphology? See discussion.
Example: Biopsy revealed endometrioid adenocarcinoma and the resection demonstrated adenocarcinoma, NOS. Do we code histology per the most representative sample, or to the more specific morphology?
Code the histology using the pathology report from the most representative specimen, even if that histology is less specific.
For the case example above, code 8140 [adenocarcinoma, NOS].
The rationale is that a diagnosis from a smaller specimen will be less accurate and less representative of the true histology compared to a larger tumor specimen.
Reportability/Histology (Pre-2007)/Behavior Code/Primary Site: How would you code these fields for a case in which an infant presents with a skin rash, enlarged spleen, palpable abdominal mass, inconclusive bone marrow biopsy and a skin biopsy that was positive for "Langerhans cell histiocytosis"? See discussion.
The pathologist states, "I would consider this case a malignancy, although it does not always behave as such. Lesions in babies often act in a malignant manner."
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
If the pathologist states this is a malignancy, the case is reportable. Code the Histology field to 9751/3 [Langerhans cell histiocytosis, NOS] and change the Behavior Code from 1 to 3. Code the Primary Site field to skin [C44._].
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.
EOD-Extension--Breast: If a negative bone scan is followed by a bone marrow biopsy that is positive for metastatic disease, is the bony involvement used when coding extension [85] or as progression of disease (ignore mets when coding extension)? See discussion.
Pt diagnosed with ductal carcinoma of the breast in May. On June 1, oncologist recommended chemo and XRT and planned a metastatic workup. A June 6 marrow MR consistent with mets. June 8 bone scan showed scoliosis of the L-spine with scattered focal areas of increased activity probably related to degenerative changes in the spine. On June 29, biopsies were done of the T2 vertebra with path diagnosis of metastatic adenocarcinoma consistent with breast primary. Chemo started July 15.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, is EOD extension code 85 correct? We felt that the bone mets was found within 4 months of diagnosis and is not progression of disease.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [metastasis]. Bone metastasis was documented during the original metastatic workup. Metastasis to the bone was suspected soon after diagnosis and confirmed prior to the start of treatment. The length of time between the diagnosis and the confirmation of the bone metastasis was not used to code extension on this case. The pt was still being worked up as evidenced by the fact that treatment had not yet started.
EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent this field for a lymphoma with retroperitoneal lymph node involvement and splenomegaly?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Per AJCC, code spleen involvement which is demonstrated by:
1. Unequivocal palpable splenomegaly alone.
2. Equivocal palpable splenomegaly with radiologic confirmation (ultrasound or CT).
3. Enlargement or multiple focal defects that are neither cystic nor vascular (radiologic enlargement alone is inadequate).
If the spleen is proven to be involved, code extension for this case as 20 [Involvement of two or more lymph node regions on the same side of the diaphragm; Stage II].
If the spleen is not proven to be involved, code extension as 10 [Involvement of a single lymph node region; Stage I].
Surgery of Primary Site/Surgical Procedure of Other Site--Bladder: What codes are used to represent these fields for a deeply invasive bladder primary treated initially with a TURP (for suspected prostate extension that turns out to be pathologically negative) and a TURB that is subsequently treated with a cystoprostatectomy?
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after, code:
1. Surgery of Primary Site field to 60 [Radical cystectomy (male only)] because the cystoprostatectomy was the most extensive (definitive) surgery performed to the primary site.
2. Surgical Procedure of Other Site to 2 [Non-primary surgical procedure to other regional sites] based on the TURP.
EOD-Extension--Breast: The SEER coding scheme classifies the in situ portion as less than 25% [code 14] or equal to or greater than 25% [code 15]. How do you code a pathologist's statement of "less than or equal to 25%"? See discussion.
"insitu ca constitutes less than or equal to 25% of the total mass."
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 14 [invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in Tumor Size AND in situ described as minimal (less than 25%)]. The pathologist did not use a code as defined by SEER. For cases described as "less than or equal to 25%", choose the lower of the two EOD code choices.
An official website of the United States government
Home