MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What is the correct histology code for this final diagnosis of a breast tumor: INVASIVE POORLY DIFFERENTIATED DUCTAL CARCINOMA WITH SQUAMOUS DIFFERENTIATION (METAPLASTIC FEATURES)?
Code the histology to 8575/3.
The instruction for coding duct and another non-duct histology not listed in Table 3 was inadverantly left out of the rules. The default is to code to the histology with the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code which is 8575/3.
Surgery of Primary Site--Brain and CNS: What procedure code would be used for NeuroBlate Laser Interstitial Thermal Therapy? This procedure was used for a Glioblastoma of the brain.
If a pathologic specimen is not taken during this procedure, code in the surgery field using code 10 (Local tumor destruction, NOS). If specimen is sent to pathology, code 90, surgery, NOS. We will request this procedure be included in future treatment field coding documentation.
Our research notes that this procedure, also known as LITT (Laser Interstitial Thermal Therapy), is a surgical treatment. Lasers transmit heat to coagulate or destroy the brain tumors from the inside out.
Reportability--Breast: Is an inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor of the breast with metastasis to the lung reportable?
Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor of the breast with metastasis to the lung is reportable. Metastasis to the lung from the breast tumor indicates that the breast tumor is malignant. All malignant neoplasms are reportable.
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.
MP/H Rules/Histology-Urinary: 1) What is the correct ICD-O-3 morphology code for conventional renal cell carcinoma? Is this clear cell carcinoma or does conventional refer to the general diagnosis?
2) If a patient was diagnosed with invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma of the bladder in May 2011 and returns in February 2013 with invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, what is the correct ICD-O-3 morphology code?
1) Clear cell renal carcinoma, code 8310, is often called conventional renal cell carcinoma. It is specific compared to renal cell carcinoma, NOS, code 8312, a general morphology term for the majority of kidney cancers. See kidney rules H5 and H12 and Table 1 on page 57 of the Kidney Terms and Definitions, http://www.seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/mphrules_definitions.pdf
2) Do not change the ICD-O-3 code assigned for the 2011 diagnosis. As you know, the 2013 diagnosis is not a new primary per rule M6.
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.
Primary site: If text supports a pancreatobiliary primary with no other information what primary site code would be assigned? C249 biliary tract NOS, or C269 GI tract nos, or C809 unknown?
Assign C269 in the absence of any additional information.
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.
Reportability--Pancreas: Is this reportable? Is this benign? If reportable, what histology code and behavior code should be used? A final pathology diagnosis reads: "Cystic pancreatic endocrine neoplasm (CPEN)".
"Cystic pancreatic endocrine neoplasm (CPEN)" is reportable. Assign 8150/3 based on the information provided. We consulted our expert pathologist and he states "Since metastases have been reported in a few, and all the rest of the pancreatic endocrine tumors are now designated malignant, …we are safe considering them /3 until proven otherwise. Since most of them are non-functioning, [assign code] 8150/3 unless specified as to G1 (8240/3) or G2 (8249/3)."
An official website of the United States government
Home