Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20140081 | Reportability/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is primary erythrocytosis equivalent to primary polycythemia and thus reportable? See discussion. |
Per the Heme Manual, Appendix F - Non-Reportable list for Heme Diseases, under Polycythemia, the Comment states that polycythemia is also known as erythrocytosis. Because polycythemia is equivalent to erythrocytosis, can we assume that "primary erythrocytosis" is equivalent to "primary polycythemia" and thus reportable as 9950/3 per the Heme DB? Or is the case nonreportable because the exact term of "primary erythrocytosis" is not listed as an alternate name for polycythemia vera, only "primary polycythemia" is listed? |
Primary erythrocytosis is not equivalent to primary polycythemia and is not reportable. This will be clarified in a future revision. Thank you for point it out to us. |
2014 |
|
|
20140005 | Primary site--Testis: In the absence of a specific statement that the patient's testicle(s) are descended, should the primary site for a testicular tumor be coded as C621 (Descended Testis) when the mass is palpable on physical exam or demonstrated on scrotal ultrasound? See discussion. | It seems the non-specific Testis, NOS (C629) code is being over used. Many testis cases have no documentation of the patient's testicular descention. However, testicular tumors in adults are frequently detected by palpation or scrotal ultrasound. An undescended testis (a testis absent from the normal scrotal position) would be non-palpable or not amenable to imaging via a scrotal ultrasound. | Unless the testicle is stated to be undescended, it is reasonable to code C621 for primary site. Reserve C629 for cases with minimal or conflicting information. | 2014 |
|
|
20150028 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: Please clarify rule H3. The first statement is "Do not code terms that do not appear in the histology description". The second statement is "Do not code...unless the words...appear in the final diagnosis"
One of our pathology labs frequently will state "keratinizing squamous cell" in the microscopic description (histologic description), but only state "squamous cell carcinoma" in the final diagnosis. May we code from the histologic description if it's not in the final diagnosis? |
Follow rule H3 and code squamous cell carcinoma for these cases unless you can obtain confirmation that these cases should be coded keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma from the lab and/or pathologist. Document this confirmation in your policies and procedures.
The MP/H rules were written with input from leading pathologists in each specialty area. Based on their expert opinion, we instruct registrars to code histology based on the information in the final diagnosis. The microscopic description may contain other terms, but the pathologist lists only the pertinent terms in the final diagnosis. |
2015 | |
|
|
20150066 | Grade--Breast: Do you take grade from the most representative specimen along with the histology? What is the correct histology/grade combination? See discussion.
|
Breast biopsy (from hospital A): DCIS, solid, cribriform, comedo type, high nuclear grade
Breast Lumpectomy (from hospital B): DCIS, cribriform type, nuclear grade 1, tumor 2.5cm |
Assign 8201/2 for this case.
MP/H rules are to code histology based on the specimen with the most tumor tissue. That would be the lumpectomy in this case. The histology is DCIS, cribriform type.
Reference: http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/mphrules_instructions.pdf
The general rule for grade is to code the highest grade specified within the applicable grading system. For the case information provided, follow instruction #5, nuclear grade: use Coding for Solid Tumors #7: 2-, 3-, or 4- grade system. High nuclear grade (grade code 3 for breast) is higher than nuclear grade 1 (grade code 1).
Reference: http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/grade/ |
2015 |
|
|
20150057 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is this diagnosis reportable? If this neoplasm originated in the spinal cord, it is reportable, correct?
Specimen is described as a 'spinal cord mass.' The final diagnosis is 'fragments of adipose tissue demonstrating vascular proliferations consistent with angiolipoma. No histologic evidence of malignancy.' The microscopic description says: Sections of the spinal mass reveal bone, cartilage, fibrous tissue and adipose tissue. The adipose tissue demonstrates increased vascularity with thin walled blood vessels seen with islands of delicate fibrous stroma. The histologic findings are compatible with fragments of angiolipoma. |
The neoplasm is reportable if it originated in the spinal cord or is intradural (within the spinal dura; spinal nerve roots are intradural). If there is not enough information to determine the exact site of origin, do not report the case. |
2015 | |
|
|
20150040 | Surgery of Primary Site--Pleura: How is this field coded if the patient underwent an exploratory thoracotomy with partial decortication that excised some, but not all, of the pleural mesothelioma tumors? See Discussion. |
This patient underwent a "partial decortication" per the operative report. While the operative report does not specifically note that this was performed with a partial pleurectomy, it appears the patient had a partial pleurectomy because the largest specimen removed was a "pleural peel" specimen, which included the parietal and visceral pleural surfaces with a small amount of underlying lung tissue. The operative report notes the patient had involvement of both the lung and chest wall. A total resection was not possible due to the extent of the tumor. However, this patient does appear to have undergone at least a partial resection of the pleura/tumor burden. The patient did not simply undergo a pleurodesis to free adhesions. Per the NCI's PDQ, pleurectomy and decortication are performed together. Because the operative report and pathology report only called this procedure a "partial decortication" without specifically mentioning a pleurectomy, would this be coded as a tumor excision (surgery code 20)? Or should we assume the procedure is best coded as a partial pleurectomy and decortication and use code 30 (simple/partial resection)? |
Read the operative report and the pathology report and assign the surgery code that best represents the extent of the surgery. In this case, code 30 seems most appropriate. Do not assign the surgery code based only on the name of the procedure; use all information available to chose the most representative code. |
2015 |
|
|
20150039 | Reportability--Skin: Is this reportable? If so, what is the correct histology code? The pathology report says, " bx of 0.7 x 0.5 cm gray-pink papule on tan-pink skin of left inferior centra malar cheek revealed invasive SCC of skin, signet ring cell type, invading papillary dermis; LVI neg; "findings are diag of SCC exhibiting the rare signet ring histologic subtype"; deep margin positive for tumor but peripheral margins clear;". |
SCC of skin, signet ring cell type, is not reportable to SEER. SCC's of skin classifiable to 8050-8084 are not reportable to SEER. See page 11 in the SEER manual, http://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2015/SPCSM_2015_maindoc.pdf
Signet ring is a rare histological variant of SCC and is coded to 8070/3 according to the WHO classification for skin tumors. |
2015 | |
|
|
20150001 | Reportability/Histology: Would a histology reading "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix be reportable? Since the word "tumor NOS" and "neoplasm NOS" both code to 8000, I would assume they would be interchangeable but just wanted to verify. According to SINQ 20130027 & 20140002 a "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" of the appendix IS reportable. |
"Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix is reportable. According to the WHO classification of Digestive System Tumors, "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix is synonymous with NET. WHO states on page 13 "The term 'neuroendocrine neoplasm' can be used synonymously with 'neuroendocrine tumor.'" Neuroendocrine "tumor," or NET G1, is listed in the WHO classification as one of the malignant neoplasms of the appendix. |
2015 | |
|
|
20150038 | Reportability/MP/H Rules/Histology: Is malignant perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa) reportable, and if so, what is the histology code? |
Malignant perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa) is reportable because it is malignant. Assign 8005/3 to malignant PEComa.
We consulted an ICD-O-3 expert who explained that some PEComas such as angiomyolipoma and lymphangiomyomatosis have specific ICD-O codes and their malignant counterparts may be coded to 8860/3 and 9174/3 respectively. There are no separate ICD-O codes for other specific PEComas, e.g., clear cell “sugar” tumor of lung, clear cell myomelanocytic tumor of the falciform ligament and some “unusual” clear cell tumors occurring in other organs—or for PEComa, NOS. These PEComas may therefore be coded to 8005 as clear cell tumors NOS; in other words as clear cell tumors that are not clear cell variants of carcinomas, sarcomas, or other specific tumor type.
Please note, PEComa is non-specific as to behavior. Unless the pathologist states that it is malignant, (as was the case for this question), the default code is 8005/1 (non-reportable). |
2015 | |
|
|
20150025 | Primary Site--Lung: What are the guidelines for coding primary site when a lung tumor is described as a hilar mass? See discussion. |
At a recent meeting, one registry stated that they apply the following guidelines. 1) If the tumor is described as a hilar mass and there is no mention of LN involvement, Primary Site is coded to hilum (C340) 2) If there is LN involvement along with the mention of a hilar mass, then Primary Site is coded to C349 |
Assign primary site code C340 when a lung tumor is described as a hilar mass. |
2015 |
An official website of the United States government
