Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20140016 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: What is the correct histology code for this situation? See discussion. | Patient has 2 bladder tumors, both invasive -- one is transitional cell carcinoma (8120/3) and the other is papillary TCC (8130/3). They have the same extent of disease, both involve the lamina propria. Is this 8120, because of the Note under rule H11 or is this 8130 because under rule H12, it says 'papillary carcinoma and transitional cell carcinoma'? If so, what is the meaning of the note under rule H11? | Rule H12 applies, code to 8130. The note under H11 is intended to explain the order of the rules; that is, why the rule to code papillary transitional/urothelial cell carcinoma (H12) follows the rule to code transitional/urothelial cell carcinoma (H11). |
2014 |
|
|
20140071 | Reportability--Lung: One of our facilities has a case they are not really sure how to report.
This patient came in for a double lung transplant due to COPD which occurred on 1/27/14. At time of transplant, the team found out the donor hospital had identified a small nodule in the right lower lobe donor lung, which they biopsied and deemed negative. However, the slides were reviewed and felt to represent adenocarcinoma. The team performed a right lower lobe lobectomy of the donor lung before transplanting into the patient.
So, we are not really sure how to handle this case. The adenocarcinoma actually belongs to the donor patient from another hospital, however, they actually didn’t identify it at that facility as their pathology was negative for a malignancy. |
This very interesting case is not reportable to either facility. Since the right lower lobe nodule was resected prior to transplantation, the case does not belong to your patient. Ideally, the cancer should be assigned to the donor; however, donor information is confidential. |
2014 | |
|
|
20140001 | Grade--Brain and CNS: How should grade be coded for a pineal parenchymal tumor of "intermediate differentiation"? See discussion. | Per a web search, the term "pineal parenchymal tumor of intermediate differentiation" refers to a pineal tumor with the histology/behavior that falls somewhere between the category of pineocytoma (9361/1) and pineoblastoma (9362/3). In other words, it is a malignant tumor that is a WHO grade II/III neoplasm because it's histologic features and behavior are not quite equivalent to a pineoblastoma (WHO grade IV). Thus, it appears the expression "intermediate differentiation" is actually referring to a type of WHO classification system rather than the grade field. Should the type of documentation provided in pathology report be used to imply the grade field is being referenced and thus be coded to 2 for "intermediate differentiation" or should grade be coded to 9 based on the information found during the web search? |
Code the grade as 2 based on instruction #8 in the revised grade instructions for 2014.
Do not use WHO grade to code the grade field for CNS tumors. |
2014 |
|
|
20140006 | Date Therapy Initiated--Corpus Uteri: How should this field be coded for an endometrial primary when the patient undergoes a hysteroscopic polypectomy on 01/08/2014 (Surgery code 25), followed by a TAH/BSO on 02/07/2014 (Surgery code 50)? See discussion. | The hysteroscopic polypectomy showed multiple tissue fragments with invasive endometrioid adenocarcinoma. The hysterectomy and BSO removed an 8.2cm endometrioid carcinoma with no extra-uterine involvement. | Record 01/08/2014 for date therapy initiated assuming there was no therapy prior to this date. A polypectomy is a surgical procedure for purposes of coding date therapy initiated. | 2014 |
|
|
20140022 | MP/H Rules/Kidney, renal pelvis--How many primaries are there for this case? Should we stop at rule M8 making this all one primary (C689) even though there were right and left renal pelvis tumors? Rule M3, which contains laterality, does not apply because there is also a bladder tumor. See discussion. |
Kidney: originally diagnosed 12/21/2011 with right renal pelvis high grade papillary urothelial cancer. Status post right nephrectomy. Then on 01/10/2013 diagnosed with low grade papillary urothelial cancer of the bladder. 01/21/2013 diagnosed with left renal pelvis urothelial carcinoma iIn situ. Path report stated this may represent a hgh grade papillary urothelial cancer – unable to confirm due to specimen size. On 01/24/2013 left periaortic lymph node biopsy revealed poorly differentiated carcinoma consistent with prior diagnosed right renal pelvis high grade urothelial cancer. Neither the bladder nor the left renal pelvis tumor was compared to the previous right renal pelvis tumor. Also has bone mets. |
Abstract this case as a single primary.
First, apply the MP/H rules to compare the 2013 bladder tumor to the 2011 renal pelvis tumor. Rule M8 applies, this is a single primary. Next, apply the MP/H rules to compare the 2013 in situ renal pelvis tumor to the 2011 renal pelvis tumor. Rule M8 applies, this is a single primary. As you correctly pointed out, Rule M3 for bilateral renal pelvis tumors, does not apply because there is also a bladder tumor in this case. |
2014 |
|
|
20140082 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: How should histology be coded for a testicular teratoma with somatic type malignancy (adenocarcinoma)? See discussion. |
11/8/2013 Rt orchiectomy: teratoma with somatic type malignancy (adenocarcinoma). 5/2/2014 Abdominal mass excision: metastatic teratoma involving matted lymph nodes. Patient age at diagnosis is 31.
Per web search, a teratoma with somatic type malignancy is a rare type of tumor. Should the histology be coded to 8140/3? This seems to conflict with SINQ 20120085, which indicates a testicular mature teratoma in an adult is malignant, and in this example, it was also the portion of tumor that metastasized. |
Assign code 9084/3, listed in ICDO as teratoma with malignant transformation.
Our expert pathologist consultant states that this is a very rare situation. The non-germ cell components are believed to arise out of the teratoma portions, and are seen in only of few percent of teratomas. They are given the designation "teratoma with somatic type malignancies" (WHO). |
2014 |
|
|
20140063 | MP/H Rules--Histology: How is histology coded when a metastatic site is biopsy positive for adenocarcinoma, but the physician clinically states this is cholangiocarcinoma? See discussion. |
The patient underwent a PTA biopsy of a lytic mass showing metastatic adenocarcinoma. Imaging revealed a large hepatic mass consistent with cholangiocarcinoma. The physician's impression on a physical exam note was the PTA biopsy was most consistent with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. However, the PTA pathology report was reviewed at this facility and the final diagnosis was not stated to be cholangiocarcinoma, only adenocarcinoma, NOS.
The priority order for coding histology rules in the MP/H Manual indicates pathology has priority over documentation in the medical record. Following the rules in the MP/H Manual, the histology would be coded as 8140 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS]. While this may be technically correct, it seems that intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is often diagnosed as adenocarcinoma on biopsy, but further stated to be cholangiocarcinoma by the physician once other primary sites have been excluded. By applying the rules in the MP/H Manual, cases that seem better characterized as cholangiocarcinomas are being collected as adenocarcinoma, NOS. Should the histology be adenocarcinoma [8140/3] or cholangiocarcinoma [8160/3] for these cases? |
When the physician has reviewed all of the pertinent information, and the physician's opinion is documented stating that the histology is cholangiocarcinoma, code cholangiocarcinoma.
A pathology report from a primary site has the highest priority for coding histology; however, there is no such pathology report in this case. We will review the histology coding instructions and add clarification in the next version. |
2014 |
|
|
20140010 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is this one primary or two? Follicular lymphoma grade 1 (9695/3) on 8/23/12 from an abdominal lymph node. On 1/6/14 an abdominal lymph node biopsy showed diffuse large b cell lymphoma arising from high grade follicle center cell lymphoma. Patient has been on observation. | 1st primary, 8/23/12: Follicular lymphoma, grade 1 2nd primary, 1/6/14: Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma Apply the multiple primary rules twice for this case. The 2012 diagnosis is follicular lymphoma. There are two histologies in 2014: diffuse large b cell lymphoma and follicle center cell lymphoma diagnosed at the same time in the same location. This is one primary per rule M4. Then compare the 2012 diagnosis to the 2014 diagnosis. Per the Hematopoietic Database, follicular lymphoma (all types) transforms to DLBCL. Per Rule M10, the DLBCL would be a second primary. |
2014 | |
|
|
20140053 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is this abstracted as one primary or two?
5/2/13 Bone Marrow biopsy: myelodysplastic syndrome with approaching to acute myeloid leukemia with del 5q and 7q deletions. FISH: deletion of chromosome 5q and deletion of chromosome 7q detected.
I checked the Heme DB manual and there is no term "With approaching to". I checked the Multiple Primary calculator and it says new primary. My interpretation is that the myelodysplastic syndrome is in the process of transforming to acute myeloid leukemia. |
Abstract a single primary, myelodysplastic syndrome with del 5q and 7q deletions (9986/3). This neoplasm can transform to acute myeloid leukemia (AML); however, "with approaching to" cannot be used to report this AML. |
2014 | |
|
|
20140011 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: Is the diagnosis of Paget disease two years after a diagnosis of infiltrating duct carcinoma of the same breast a new primary? See discussion. | A patient was diagnosed and treated in 2010 for infiltrating duct carcinoma of the left breast. There was no mention of Paget disease. Then in 2012, the same patient was diagnosed with Paget disease of the nipple of the left breast. Rule M9 seems to apply; so this is the same primary, correct? And the information about the Paget disease is simply never captured, correct? | Yes, Rule M9 makes this a single primary. You could revise the original histology code to 8541/3 on the assumption that Paget was present at the original diagnosis, but not yet identified. | 2014 |
An official website of the United States government
