Seq no-central--Brain and CNS: How should subsequent tumors be sequenced when the patient has a history of a brain tumor, with no information on the behavior of the brain tumor? According to the sequencing rules, it appears some assumption must be made regarding the behavior of the brain tumor.
Sequence the brain tumor in the 60-87 series when you do not know the behavior. If you have reason to believe the brain tumor was malignant, sequence it in the 00-59 series.
Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: How should the Surgery of Primary Site field be coded when a patient has a lumpectomy and an additional margin excision during the same procedure? See discussion.
Operative report indicates a wire localized lumpectomy was performed. The pathology report includes a final diagnosis for two specimens as follows:
A) LEFT BREAST, EXCISION: INFILTRATING DUCTAL CARCINOMA
B) LEFT BREAST, NEW DEEP MARGIN, EXCISION: BENIGN BREAST TISSUES AND BENIGN FIBROFATTY SOFT TISSUES; NO EVIDENCE OF NEOPLASIA.
The definition for Breast surgery code 23 is "Reexcision of the biopsy site for gross or microscopic residual disease". There is no indication whether the re-excision has to be a separate procedure or can be during the same procedure as the excisional biopsy (lumpectomy). Some hospital registrars in our region believe code 22 is more appropriate.
Revised Answer
Assign code 22 when a patient has a lumpectomy and an additional margin excision during the same procedure.
According to the CoC, "Re-excision of the margins intraoperatively during same surgical event does not require additional resources; it is still 22. Subsequentre-excision of lumpectomy margins during separate surgical event requires additional resources: anesthesia, op room, and surgical staff; it qualifies for code 23."
Reportability--Appendix: Is the appendix the primary site for a low grade mucinous appendiceal neoplasm (LAMN) with diffuse peritoneal dissemination? See discussion.
Patient had an appendectomy revealing a low grade mucinous appendiceal neoplasm (LAMN) with diffuse peritoneal dissemination. Patient now with cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), which revealed metastatic disease in the abdomen, omentum, pelvic peritoneum, peri-cecal, and gallbladder.
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2022
Low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) is not reportable, even when it spreads within the peritoneal cavity, according to our expert pathologist consultant. Peritoneal spread of this /1 neoplasm does not indicate malignancy. It is still /1 when there is spread of LAMN in the peritoneal cavity.
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;".
Reportablility--Breast: Is lobular neoplasia reportable as lobular carcinoma in situ? See Discussion.
According to College of American Pathologists (CAP), lobular neoplasia is also known as lobular carcinoma in situ. In a previous SEER question 20041089, it was stated that they were not the same and should not be reported unless it was a Grade 3. I assume this has changed and we are to report lobular neoplasia as lobular carcinoma in situ, is this correct?
For cases diagnosed 2021 or later
Lobular neoplasia (LN II and LN III) and lobular intraepithelial neoplasia (LIN II and LIN III) are reportable and coded 8520/2.
Reportability--Bladder: Is a positive UroVysion test alone diagnostic of bladder cancer? See discussion.
The UroVysion website says that standard procedures, e.g., cytology, cystoscopy, take precedence over the UroVysion test. The Quest Diagnostics website says that "A positive result is consistent with a diagnosis of bladder cancer or bladder cancer recurrence, either in the bladder or in another site within the urinary system. A negative result is suggestive of the absence of bladder cancer but does not rule it out." Would we pick up the case if the UroVysion test was positive but the standard procedures were negative or non-diagnostic?
Do not report the case based on UroVysion test results alone. Report the case if there is a physician statement of malignancy and/or the patient was treated for cancer.
Surgery Primary Site--Breast: Please clarify how to code both simple mastectomy with tissue expander and AlloDerm reconstruction, and simple mastectomy with tissue expander (NOS). See discussion.
There are multiple SEER Notes in the Breast Surgery Codes of Appendix C instructing us to code tissue expanders as reconstruction but none address the type of reconstruction to be coded.
1. Is a tissue expander always equivalent to Implant reconstruction?
2. Is AlloDerm always equivalent to Tissue reconstruction?
3. Is the combination of AlloDerm and tissue expander always equivalent to Combined (tissue and implant) reconstruction?
Do not code AlloDerm as either a tissue or implant reconstruction, it is a graft material that usually accompanies implant reconstruction. Placement of a tissue expander is an indication of planned reconstruction. Additional information is needed to determine whether the reconstruction involves tissue or implant.
1. A tissue expander is not always equivalent to Implant reconstruction
2. AlloDerm is not equivalent to tissue reconstruction
3. The combination of AlloDerm and tissue expander is not equivalent to combined (tissue and implant) reconstruction
MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: Does rule M10 apply in this situation?
L breast biopsy = INVASIVE DUCTAL CARCINOMA
L breast simple mastectomy = 2.0 cm INVASIVE DUCTAL CARCINOMA with an incidental finding of separate 1.0 cm INVASIVE LOBULAR CARCINOMA; pathologist specifically states the tumors are morphologically different. The tumors are both pure Ductal/pure Lobular.
Yes, Breast rule M10 applies. This case is a single primary.
Follow the MP/H rules even though the "pathologist specifically states the tumors are morphologically different" so that situations like this are reported consistenty accross cancer registries, regions, and states for consistent national reporting.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney: What is the correct histology for this diagnosis? See discussion.
Procedure: Nephrectomy
Laterality: Left
Tumor type: SOLID VARIANT RENAL CELL CARCINOMA
Nuclear grade: High grade (3/4)
Histologic grade: Poorly differentiated
Pattern of growth: Solid
Tumor size: 5x4.5x4cm
Local invasion: Present
Renal vein invasion: None
Surgical margins: Negative
Non-neoplastic kidney: Unremarkable
Adrenal gland: Not submitted
Lymph nodes: Not present
Pathologic stage: T1b
There are solid sheets of tumor cells without papillary structure. The tumor stains positive for Pax-2, negative for Ecadherin, P63 and CK7, consistent with renal cell carcinoma, solid variant.
Assign histology code 8312, renal cell ca, NOS. There is no specific code for the solid variant of renal cell carcinoma.
An official website of the United States government
Home