Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20031035 | Reportability/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: Does the presence of sideroblasts on a bone marrow biopsy confirm a diagnosis of refractory anemia with sideroblasts? | Final path diagnosis of bone marrow biopsy:
I. Hypercellular marrow for age with trilinear hyperplasia. II. Decreased iron stores with decreased sideroblasts.
Comment: Although the overall picture is not diagnostic of a specific entity, it is most consistent with an early stage myelodysplastic syndrome which would best be considered refractory anemia at this point.
In this case the percentage of sideroblasts is not stated. Would the path diagnosis of "decreased sideroblasts" along with the path comment of "refractory anemia" indicate that this case should be coded to 9982/3 [Refractory anemia with sideroblasts]? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
For the hematologic diseases, do not accession the case unless there is a definite positive diagnosis. A positive diagnosis, such as "Refractory anemia" must be stated in order to code that diagnosis. Other words associated with the positive diagnosis, such as "sideroblasts" are NOT to be used alone to assume a diagnosis.
Decreased sideroblasts does not make a diagnosis of Refractory anemia with sideroblasts. The sideroblasts for 9982/3 [Refractory anemia with sideroblasts] are characteristic in rings, and are INCREASED to make the diagnosis.
Based on the information provided, this case is not reportable. The final path diagnosis is not a reportable disease. The comment further states that the overall picture is not diagnostic of a specific entity. Therefore, it should not be reported at this point.
For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ. |
2003 |
|
|
20031031 | Reportability/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: What histology code is used for a patient diagnosed with "myelodysplasia" prior to 2001, if a bone marrow biopsy in 2002 is consistent with myelodysplastic syndrome with refractory anemia with bilineage dysplasia with excess blasts and the final impression is "myelodysplastic syndrome slowly evolving toward acute leukemia?" |
Patient was admitted in July 15, 2002. Per the H&P, patient was diagnosed 5 years ago with myelodysplasia. Patient had bone marrow biopsy about 5 years ago and then again on 6-10-02. Patient has become transfusion dependent since mid-March. Bone marrow on 6-10-02 was consistent with myelodysplastic syndrome with refractory anemia with bilineage dysplasia with excessive blasts. Impression: Myelodysplastic syndrome slowly evolving toward acute leukemia. Plan: start chemo. 7-16-02 bone marrow biopsy showed acute myeloid leukemia. Can we assume that the myelodysplasia diagnosed 5 years ago was refractory anemia and therefore, patient's first reportable diagnosis would be the AML? Or is the 6-10-02 bone marrow biopsy showing refractory anemia to be the first reportable diagnosis because the term "myelodysplasia" is non-specific? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010: Based on the information provided, the diagnosis date is June 2002. The diagnosis is 9895/3, acute myeloid leukemia with multilineage dysplasia (AML with prior myelodysplastic syndrome). According to the SEER table of hematopoietic diseases, refractory anemia and myelodysplastic syndrome followed by AML is one primary. Prior to 2001, a diagnosis of myelodysplasia was not reportable. For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ. |
2003 |
|
|
20031175 | First Course Therapy: Are radio immune labeled antibodies, such as Bexxar [Tositum--I-131] coded as immunotherapy, radiotherapy, or experimental therapy? |
Agents such as Bexxar or Zevalin are radioisotopes and coded as radiation. These agents destroy cancer cells with radiation. | 2003 | |
|
|
20031198 | Surgery of Primary Site/Date Therapy Initiated--Head & Neck: Would a biopsy, NOS, that removed the majority of the tumor be used to code these fields? See Description. | Patient underwent biopsy, NOS, of a carcinoma of the tongue. Subsequent glossectomy revealed microscopic focus of residual squamous cell carcinoma. | If the biopsy NOS removed all macroscopic disease, code the date of the biopsy NOS as the date therapy initiated. If macroscopic disease remained following the biopsy NOS, code the glossectomy date as the date therapy initiated. | 2003 |
|
|
20031008 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Kidney: Is 8316/3 [Cyst associated renal cell carcinoma] the appropriate code for 1) Cystic renal cell carcinoma, 2) Renal cell carcinoma mass with cystic areas and 3) Cystic renal cell carcinoma, clear cell type? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Yes, ICD-O-3 histology code 8316 is the correct code for the three examples above. There are two categories of cyst-associated renal cell carcinomas: Renal cell carcinoma originating in a cyst, and Cystic renal cell carcinoma.
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. |
2003 | |
|
|
20031005 | Histology (Pre-2007): Do the terms "keratinizing" or "non-keratinizing" have to be present in the final diagnosis to use codes 8071 through 8073? See discussion. | Should "squamous cell carcinoma, small cell variant" be coded to 8073 even though the final diagnoses does not include the phrase "non-keratinizing?" | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
It is acceptable to assign code 8073/3 for squamous cell carcinoma, small cell, NOS. Code squamous cell carcinoma, large cell, NOS to 8072/3. Code to non-keratinizing unless the pathology report specifies keratinizing.
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. |
2003 |
|
|
20031004 | Surgery of Primary Site--Skin: When would one use codes 30-33 for this field on a skin primary? | Surgery of Primary Site codes 30-33 under "skin" are used for various types of biopsies followed by a gross excision of the lesion. The two procedures (biopsy and gross excision) may be performed on different days, at different facilities, by different physicians as long as both procedures are performed during the first course of treatment. Answer applies to both pre-2002 and 2003+ surgury code definitions. |
2003 | |
|
|
20031171 | Reportability: Is pseudomyxoma peritonei always reportable? See Description. | In the ICD-O-3, pseudomyxoma peritonei has a behavior code of 6, indicating that it is malignant. Does this imply that pseudomyxoma peritonei is always a reportable malignancy? In the past, our pathologist consultant told us that pseudomyxoma peritonei is only a reportable malignancy if the underlying tumor is malignant. A benign cystadenoma of the appendix, for example, can rupture causing pseudomyxoma perionei. Does SEER agree with our pathologist consultant? Example: Patient was found to have psuedomyxoma peritonei. Right hemicolectomy was done. Path reported an appendix with mucinous cystic tumor of undetermined malignant potential. A definite diagnosis of cancer can not be rendered. |
Reportability is determined from the behavior of the primary tumor and the behavior of implants. If either are malignant, the case is reportable. The case example does not seem to be reportable, based on the available information. Cancer diagnosis has not been made according to the pathology report. |
2003 |
|
|
20031009 | Reportability/Behavior Code--Soft Tissue: Is a final diagnosis of a forearm mass diagnosed as "Angiomatoid malignant fibrous histiocytoma [see note]" reportable? The NOTE reads "Angiomatoid malignant fibrous histiocytoma is a low grade borderline lesion with a tendency for local recurrence, but a very low potential for distant metastases." Is behavior /1 or /3? | Angiomatoid malignant fibrous histiocytoma is reportable with a behavior code of /3 according to ICD-O-3. The Final Diagnosis takes precedence over the "note." | 2003 | |
|
|
20031141 | Priorities/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Breast: Which part of the pathology report takes precedence when there is a discrepancy between the final path diagnosis and the CAP summary? See Description. | For example, breast primary: Final path states "14/18 nodes (+) for tumor & separate matted aggregate of axillary nodes (+) for tumor. Subpectoral lymph node (+) for mets ca. Path Gross states "18 separate lymph nodes identified...many (+) for tumor grossly. Aggregate of matted lymph nodes within axillary tissue (+) for tumor. Multiple separate lymph nodes submitted." CAP Micro Summary lists "20/16 nodes examined/positive." What is correct number of nodes positive & nodes examined in this case? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The final pathology diagnosis has highest priority. The CAP summary is second priority. However, you always use the best information available. If the final path diagnosis is vague or unclear, information from the CAP summary can be used. In the case example, the total lymph node count from the final path diagnosis is unclear and the CAP summary provides clarification. Code the number of lymph nodes positive as 16 and the number examined 20. Subpectoral lymph nodes are regional nodes for breast primaries. | 2003 |
An official website of the United States government
