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.
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.
Multiple Primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: 2012 path report for removal of an "axillary mass" which consists of 80% diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and 20% follicular lymphoma. In the original manual, Module 6 instructed us to code as a single primary, DLBCL. However, the multiple primary calculator says each disease is a separate primary. When I looked them up in the data base, I did not get an option to review a current manual. Can you please advise?
Code as a single primary with histology Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.
In this case, there are two NHLs in the same location at the same time. Apply Rule M4, this is one primary. Per Note 5 under Rule M4, go to Rules PH11and PH15 to assign primary site and histology.
Rule PH11 states to code to the site of the origin (axillary mass) and to diffuse large b-cell lymphoma (9680/3) when DLBCL and any other non-Hodgkin lymphoma (follicular in this case) are present in the same location at the same time.
Using the multiple primaries calculator in this situation will give you two primaries, which is the wrong answer. Use the rules before using the calculator.
To get to the manual, go to the "Help me code for dx year." section. Choose 2010 or later and the most current manual will appear. We recommend that you save a copy of the PDF on your computer.
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.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: What is the correct histology code for a diagnosis of urothelial plasmacytoma carcinoma of the bladder per pathology report?
Assign code 8120/3, urothelial carcinoma, NOS, to urothelial plasmacytoma carcinoma of the bladder. The WHO classification describes plasmacytoid variants of urothelial carcinoma. There is no specific ICD-O-3 code for these variants; however, and 8120/3 must be used.
Laterality: Why is a code 5 for laterality midline only allowed for certain sites of brain and skin? I have a nasal cavity tumor and the path report specifically says "Tumor laterality: midline". What is the correct laterality code here?
Assign laterality code 9 for midline nasal cavity tumor. We will investigate this issue further.
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.
Summary Stage 2000--Melanoma: How should Summary Stage 2000 be coded for 2014+ diagnosed melanoma cases with satellite nodules or in transit metastases? See discussion.
The SEER SS (SSS) 2000 Manual indicates satellite nodules (NOS or less than/equal to 2cm from primary tumor) are regional by direct extension (code 2) and in-transit metastasis (satellite nodules greater than 2 cm from primary tumor) are coded as involvement of regional lymph nodes (code 3). However, CSv0205 indicates mapping for satellite nodules/in transit metastasis (coded in CS LN) was changed to Regional, NOS (code 5). There are no definitions listed for code 5 in the SSS 2000 Manual.
Our staff independently code SSS 2000. Should we code the existence of satellite nodules and in transit metastases according to the current definitions in the SSS 2000 Manual or using the mapping information from CSv0205?
Code the existence of satellite nodules and in transit metastases according to the current definitions in the SSS 2000 Manual. Do not use the mapping information from CS to code SSS.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home