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: 10/19/2024 04:14 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20091010 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What histology is coded when a final diagnosis on a lumpectomy specimen states "adenocarcinoma" but the regional lymph nodes show "poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma with signet ring differentiation"? See Discussion.

3/23 left breast mass bx: infiltrating lobular carcinoma.

6/22 left breast lumpectomy: infiltrating adenocarcinoma; sentinel lymph nodes with metastatic poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma with signet ring differentiation. Axillary resection with poorly differentiated metastasis in 8/9 nodes. The path micro states: tissue consists of sections of breast tissue having an infiltrating ca which in some areas infiltrates as small duct-like structures, and in other areas as small gland-like structures. In addition, there are foci in which the cells infiltrate in a single file fashion. In a few areas, cells having a signet ring appearance similar to those seen in the lymph nodes are encountered. In other areas, the signet ring appearance is not prominent. Areas of ductal or lobular ca in situ are not identified (the lymph node resection specimen shows 'signet ring appearance in some areas but no ductlike or tubular structures observed')

The comment on the lumpectomy path states: 'This is an unusual tumor in that it has histologic characteristics in varying areas, which would be consistent with infiltrating ductal carcinoma, infiltrating lobular carcinoma, tubular carcinoma or signet ring cell carcinoma. The metastatic material (8/9 total axillary lymph nodes) is most consistent with the poorly differentiated signet ring type portion of the tumor undergoing metastasis.'

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Code the histology 8140 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS] using Breast rule H14.

Code the histology from the final diagnosis on the pathology report of the most representative specimen (the lumpectomy in this case). Do not code histology from the microscopic description. Code the histology from the primary site whenever available, not the metastatic site.

Comments on pathology reports can be used to code histology. However, in this case the final diagnosis is more definitive than the comments. The comment provides several choices and none of these appear in the final diagnosis; an indication that the pathologist was not able to clearly identify a more specific type in this case.

 2009
20091015 MP/H Rules/Histology--Gallbladder: What histology is coded for a tumor described as "90% high grade neuroendocrine ca, large cell type; and 10% low grade adenocarcinoma, conventional type"?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

MP/H Rule H17 for Other Sites applies. Code the histology 8140 [adenocarcinoma].

The ICD-O-3 code for large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma is 8013 and the code for adenocarcinoma is 8140.

 2009
20091107

CS Extension--Lymphoma: Does peripheral blood involvement affect the stage for lymphoma? See Discussion.

2009 Diagnostic Year

Lymph node bx is positive for Mantle Cell lymphoma. Flow cytometry on lymph node tissue shows CD+ pos B cell lymphoproliferative disorder. IHC findings support Mantle Cell lymphoma. Flow cytometry on peripheral blood shows CD+ B cell lymphoproliferative disorder. Because the lymph node is positive for Mantle Cell lymphoma and the flow cytometry findings are the same on the lymph node tissue and peripheral blood, is the peripheral blood involved (Stage IV disease)?

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.No. Peripheral blood is not the same as bone marrow involvement which is what would be required for stage IV.

Lymphomas can arise in lymph nodes which are connected by lymphatic vessels. Both lymphatic vessels and blood vessels travel through lymph nodes and malignant cells can travel between the vessels. Cells in peripheral blood do not prove Stage IV.

 2009
20091018 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries/CS Extension: How many primaries are to be accessioned when tumors are present bilaterally in the pleura and fallopian tubes? See Discussion.

For both pleura and fallopian tube, the MP/H rules indicate that bilateral involvement of these sites should be coded as multiple primaries. However, both of these sites have CS extension codes that classify the contralateral disease as regional extension.

Is a case described as a left sided pleural mesothelioma that has right sided pleural disease coded as one or two primaries? How is CS coded?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

For a pleural or fallopian tube primary, if there is tumor(s) on the left and separate tumor(s) on the right and neither is stated to be metastatic from the other, abstract as multiple primaries according to rule M8 for other sites. If both sides are involved, but there is only one tumor, rule M2 for other sites applies and this is a single primary. Code each primary separately in CS.

 2009
20091016 CS Extension--Pancreas: How do you code this field for a head of pancreas primary with involvement of portal and splenic veins? See Discussion. The splenic artery/vein is only mentioned in the body and tail scheme; no mention is made of this site in the pancreatic head scheme.

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.Assign CS extension code 54 [major blood vessels]. The portal vein is listed under code 54 for head of pancreas. The splenic vein branches from the portal vein.

 2009
20091057 CS Site Specific Factor--Lymphoma: Can the term "intermediate risk" be used to code IPI score? See Discussion. Patient has Hodgkin disease. The physician states that the patient has bulky stage IIA intermediate risk disease. Is the term "risk" another way of stating IPI score? If so, how would intermediate risk be coded?

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 SSF 3 for lymphoma based on the IPI score stated in the record. Do not attempt to interpret statements or terms in order to assign a code to SSF 3. If no further information is available for this case, code SSF 3 999 [Unknown].

 2009
20091064 Radiation Sequence with Surgery--Head & Neck: How is this field coded for a tonsil primary diagnosed on 4/16/07 by a regional lymph node FNA when the patient subsequently initiates radiation on 5/8/07 and has a tonsillectomy with neck dissection on 7/30/07? The best way to handle this situation is to assign code 2 [Radiation before surgery] in Radiation Sequence with Surgery. Code 2 provides the best description of the sequence of events in this case. Radiation was delivered prior to the resection of the primary site. 2009
20091068 Primary site--Bladder: What is the appropriate subsite for "adjacent to the bladder neck"? Assign code C679 [Bladder, NOS]. It is not possible to determine the location of the tumor from the description. A tumor that is "adjacent to bladder neck" could be located in the trigone or on the bladder wall (anterior, posterior or lateral). 2009
20091012 MP/H Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: If the final diagnosis states "see microscopic description," can the micro information be used to code the histology? See Discussion. In regards to coding histology for 2007 and forward cases, we are instructed to use the final diagnosis, and any addenda or comments associated with the final diagnosis. We are not to use the microscopic description. However, we are seeing pathology reports with a final diagnosis that also includes the notation "see microscopic description" or "see description". Example: "Left Parotid: High grade carcinoma involving deep lobe with marginal extension. See description." The microscopic description goes on to describe the carcinoma in more detail, which includes a statement "consistent with the ductal type of primary parotid carcinoma." Can we use this microscopic description or not?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

When the final diagnosis indicates that the microscopic section contains the detailed diagnosis, use the microscopic description to code the histology.

Otherwise, code from the final diagnosis only and not from the microscopic description. The final diagnosis is usually the pathologist's conclusion after consideration of the various choices listed in the microscopic description. The histology code should represent the pathologist's final conclusion.

 2009
20091049 P/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung/Breast: Can we assume that a current tissue specimen is a recurrence of previous primary if a pathologist states that he has compared the current specimen with the slides from the prior tumor and concludes that the current tumor is "similar" to a previous tumor? See Discussion.

The MP/H rule general information section states that we do not accession a second primary unless a pathologist compares the current tumor to the original tumor and states that the current tumor is a recurrence of cancer from the previous primary. In our experience it is rare that a pathologist speaks so bluntly. They frequently hedge somewhat.

Are the following statements worded strongly enough for us to make the assumption that the current tumor is a recurrence of patient's previous cancer?

Example 1: Pathologist states: Patient's prior lung tumor reviewed. The tumor in the current case (left lower lobe) shows similarities to some areas of the patient's prior left lower lobe tumor.

Example 2: Pathologist states: The focus of ductal carcinoma in the mastectomy specimen does resemble the carcinoma in the previous partial mastectomy specimen. (Slides reviewed).

All pathologists do not use words in the same way. Therefore, we will not provide a list of specific words to accept or not to accept in order to determine recurrence. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, do not base your decision about recurrence on words such as "similar" or "resembles." If the pathologist believes two or more tumors are the same or believes one is a recurrence of another after comparison, accept it. When pathologists believe that two or more tumors are not the same or believe that one is not a recurrence of another, there is usually a strong statement indicating that opinion. 2009