Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are schwannomas of the spinal cord reportable when they are intradural? See Discussion.
The CNS guidelines basically indicate that schwannomas must all come from peripheral nerves and thus are not reportable when they are on the spinal cord. However, the COC Inquiry 18174 & 18068 states that schwannomas occasionally will develop inside the dura (intradural) on the spinal cord and would be reportable.
According to an expert consultant, schwannomas must be derived from Schwann cells which are not a part of the CNS. All schwannomas come from peripheral nerves. Benign and borderline tumors of the peripheral nerves (C47_), including peripheral nerves along the spinal cord, are not reportable.
CS Site Specific Factor/Melanoma: How is CS SSF1 (depth of invasion) coded for a melanoma that demonstrates dermal invasion to a depth of "less than .2 mm" be coded to 999 [unknown]? See Discussion.
The path report says "superficial spreading malignant melanoma; 2 areas of papillary dermal invasion to depth of less than .2mm."
The revised CS pages include codes for "less than" a certain tumor size, but these are not included in the depth of invasion SSF. Using 999 results in an unstageable melanoma, when we know it is "less than .2mm".
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 SSF1 (depth of invasion) to 019 [.19mm]. For any case with an SSF1 code in the range of 001-100 mm, the T category will be determined using CS extension and SSF2 [ulceration]. All cases with an SSF1 code in the range of 001-100 mm will map to a T1 (either T1NOS, T1a or T1b).
Reportability--Brain and CNS: Does a neurofibroma actually arise in peripheral nerve roots like a schwannoma even if it is referred to as a "C6-T1 intradural spinal cord tumor" and is therefore not reportable?
Schwannomas and neurofibromas of the peripheral nerves are not reportable. Schwannomas of the nerve root or spinal dura are reportable.
Reportability/Histology: Is a case reportable if the Final Diagnosis in a pathology report indicates a non reportable diagnosis but the Diagnosis Comment on the same report indicates a non reportable diagnosis followed by a reportable diagnosis in parenthesis? See Discussion.
08/13/2007 polypectomy final diagnosis: tubulovillous adenoma with severe epithelial atypia. Dx Comment (on same path) ...atypia including focal cribriform glandular architecture (carcinoma in situ).
This case is reportable as carcinoma in situ. The histology code is 8263/2 [adenocarcinoma in situ in a tubulovillous adenoma].
According to our pathologist consultant, a "comment" in a path report is a part of the diagnosis - it often elaborates on or clarifies the diagnosis. Placing [carcinoma in situ] in the comment, even in parentheses, indicates that is the appropriate diagnosis for our purposes.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: When the microscopic description indicates a colon tumor is "tubulovillous," but the final diagnosis only states "adenocarcinoma," is the histology coded to 8263/3 [adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma]?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Yes. This is an example of a site-specific exception to the general rule to code only from the final diagnosis. The Colon Histology Rules specifically state that "other parts of the pathology report" may be used to identify a tumor arising from a polyp, adenomatous polyp, villous adenoma, or tubulovillous adenoma.
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.
MP/H Rules--Urinary: How many primaries are abstracted when a patient has a May 2000 invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder, a November 2004 invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the right ureter and a May 2007 urothelial carcinoma in situ of both the left and right ureters?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Using the pre-2007 multiple primary rules, the PTCC of the bladder in 2000 and the invasive TCC of the right ureter in Nov. 2004 would have been abstracted as separate primaries.
Use the 2007 MP/H rules to evaluate the May 2007 diagnosis. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M8. The May 2007 diagnosis is the same primary.
Rule M4 does not apply because of the 2000 bladder primary. A clarification will be added to M4 to stress that for the urinary rules, any urinary tumor up to the present point in time is counted when applying this rule.
CS Tumor Size/CS Extension--Prostate: Because prostatectomy results are excluded from the CS Extension field for prostate, is code 95 [No evidence of primary tumor] accurate to reflect bilateral lobe involvement of prostate cancer when it is incidentally found following a radical cystectomy for a bladder primary? Why must tumor size be 000 when the CS Extension code is 95?
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 prostate CS Extension to 99 [Extension unknown] and code CS Tumor Size according to the information available from the surgery.
CS Extension code 95 [No evidence of primary tumor] should be used only in that rare situation when the only evidence of disease is distant mets or lymph node involvement, no primary tumor found. That is why CS tumor Size must be 000 when CS Extension code 95 is used.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: What histology would be coded when the right colon demonstrates a combined adenocarcinoma and high grade small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma [forming the dominant component] arising in a villotubular adenoma and the liver biopsy demonstrates metastatic high grade small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, start with rule H1 in the Single Tumor module. Stop at rule H4. Assign code 8263 [adenocarcinoma in tubulovillous adenoma].
Stop at the first rule that applies. Code histology based on a specimen from the primary site whenever available.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: Regarding histology rule H21, is there a hierarchy or do you code the higher histology if there is an adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp and an adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
If you arrive at H21 and have an additional decision to make regarding the use of 8210, 8261 or 8263, you must make another pass through the histology rules. The second pass will determine which of the two or three histology codes to assign. The answer will vary depending of the specifics of the case.
Example:
Transverse colon: Adenocarcinoma in an adenomatous polyp involving muscularis propria and adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma involving subserosa of transverse colon. Start with rule H15 because there are multiple tumors. Stop at H21 -- code either 8210 or 8261. To decide between 8210 and 8261, make a second pass through the histology rules, starting again with H15. Stop at H20. Code the histology of the most invasive tumor, 8210 [Adenocarcinoma in adenomatous polyp].
An official website of the United States government
Home