Reportability--Pancreas: Is a solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas reportable?
Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas is reportable. According to the WHO classification, it is a "low-grade malignant neoplasm…[which] frequently undergoes hemorrhagic-cystic degeneration and occurs predominantly in young women."
Assign topography code C25 with the appropriate 4th digit. Code the histology as 8452/3.
MP/H/Multiple primaries--Stomach: How should I report this case? I reviwed both the MP/H and the Heme Rules and could not determine whether or not this case is multiple primaries in a single site but two histologies and therefore needing two separate abstracts.
Path Diagnosis: Gastric Mass Biopsy: 1) Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma. 2) Extranodal Marginal Zone Lymphoma of Mucosa-Associated Lymphoid Tissue (MALT Lymphoma). 3) Mild Intestinal Metaplasia and Marked Fundic Gland Atrophy, Negative for H Pylori. Comments: Biopsy shows presence of both signet ring carcinoma and MALT Lymphoma.
Report two primaries: MALT lymphoma and signet ring carcinoma. Use the 2007 MP/H rules and the Heme rules for this case.
This case could be an example of a "collision tumor" - two separate tumors that grow together into one mass. Collision tumors are a rare exception to rule M2 in the MP/H rules.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder:What is the correct histology code for the following bladder histology? High grade urothelial cancer with extensive neuroendocrine differentiation.
Code neuroendocrine carcinoma, 8246/3. Note 2 under Rule H7 applies.
We are reviewing mixed histologies for the next version of the rules.
Primary Site/In Situ: How is primary site coded for an in situ carcinoma arising in a mucinous cystadenoma with ovarian stroma (focal) located in the right lobe of the liver? See discussion.
The SEER Coding and Staging Manual instructs one to code the primary site to the location where the tumor originated, in this case the liver. However, there is no CS Extension code for in situ tumors found in the CS Manual Liver Schema.
Based on the information provided, the primary site is liver. Submit the CS question to the CoC CAnswer Forum, http://cancerbulletin.facs.org/forums/content.php
Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Prostate: Can you clarify why a prostate biopsy diagnosis of “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” is not reportable while a biopsy diagnosis of “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable? See discussion.
SINQ 20091103 states that prostate biopsies showing “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” are NOT reportable. However, SINQ 20071056 states that “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable. This appears to be an issue of semantics with no clearly outlined method to determine reportability of such cases.
We have two recent cases with similar semantic issues and want to know whether they are reportable.
1) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation, highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma, with quality/quantity insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer.”
2) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma but due to the small size of focus, findings are not definitively diagnostic.”
Both case examples provided are reportable using instructions for ambiguous terminology. The diagnoses are qualified by the words "highly suspicious" because neither diagnosis is definitive ("insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer" and "not definitively diagnostic."). However, we follow our instructions for interpreting ambiguous terminology and report these cases.
SINQ 20091103 differs slightly. The final diagnosis in 20091103 declares unequivocally "not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma." That phrase in the final diagnosis negates the ambiguous terminology. The situation in 20071056 is similar to the two examples above - the ambiguous terminology instructions apply.
Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a statement of "JAK-2 positive polycythemia" reportable? See discussion.
Polycythemia, NOS is not reportable. However, there is a statement in the Heme Manual Glossary for JAK2 that states, "When JAK2 is positive, the MPN is definitely reportable." Does a positive JAK 2 always mean there is a reportable myeloproliferative disorder or must there also be an associated statement of a reportable neoplasm (e.g., myeloproliferative disorder, polycythemia vera, or essential thrombocythemia)?
A positive JAK 2 does not always mean there is a reportable myeloproliferative disorder. There must also be an associated statement of a reportable neoplasm (e.g., myeloproliferative disorder, polycythemia vera, or essential thrombocythemia). The glossary entry will be clarified.
MP/H/Multiple primaries--Urinary: In Aug 2008 Patient was diagnosed with Noninvasive Bladder Cancer. In Oct 2013 Patient was diagnosed with Transitional Cell Carcinoma of Right Ureter involving lamina propria, Noninvasive Transitional Cell Carcinoma Left Ureter and Invasive Transitional Cell Carcinoma of Prostatic Urethra. Is this a new primary and what is the primary site?
Rule M7 applies when comparing the 2008 diagnosis to the 2013 diagnosis: multiple primaries.
Rule M8 applies to the tumors identified in 2013: single primary.
Based on the information provided, code the primary site for 2013 to C689 because there is no indication of the site of origin among the involved sites.
Primary site: What primary site do I assign to a Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the parapharyngeal space when there is no other info available regarding a more definitive site within the parapharyngeal space? Each physician involved with the case states the primary site is the parapharyngeal space. This is a patient who was diagosed and treated elswhere and was seen at our hospital several months later for a radical neck dissection for suspected lymph node mets.
Assign C139 for a primary originating in the parapharyngeal space. This space contains part of the parotid gland, adipose tissue, lymph nodes, nerves, arteries and veins.
MP/H/Multiple Primaries--Urinary: Is this one primary with a C689 primary code and morphology 8130/3? Or is this 2 primaries: 1. C679 8130/3 and 2.C680 8120/2. See discussion.
Urinary: Transitional Cell Carcinoma and open prostatectomy: Path from Bladder: Papillary and solid transitional cell carcinoma of bladder - grade II and III Stage A.
Path from prostatectomy: The prostatic tissue samples shows areas of urothelia carcinoma in situ - related to the tumor present in the bladder.
Conclusion: Prostatectomy showing foci of transitional cell carcinoma in situ of prostatic urethra.
Abstract a single primary, C679 8130/3. Rules M2 and H4 apply. Transitional cell/urothelial carcinoma in the prostatic urethra is likely an extension from the known bladder TCC in this case, not a separate primary. See prostatic urethra on page 63 in the Urinary Terms and Definitions, http://www.seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/mphrules_definitions.pdf
First course treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Anus: Would infrared coagulation be coded as treatment for AIN III of the anus/anal canal? See discussion.
SINQ 20051064 indicates infrared coagulation is not treatment for cancer. Internet search explains that infrared coagulation delivers heat to destroy the tissue so it can be removed. In our region it is currently used to treat internal and external anal low grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) and high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL). While it is understandable that this wouldn't be coded as treatment for an invasive anal primary, could it be treatment for an in situ tumor? If it is treatment, should it be coded under Surgery code 15
The answer to SINQ 20050164 still applies. Do not code infrared coagulation as cancer treatment. It is used to coagulate blood vessels and not to destroy cancer tissue.
An official website of the United States government
Home