Primary Site--Lymphoma: Is the primary site likely to be extranodal for a lymphoma that presents in an extranodal site and lymph nodes which are regional for that site? Is the primary site also likely to be extranodal if an extranodal site and lymph nodes are excised? See discussion.
Example: Work-up included a negative CXR. A CT showed multiple dilated loops of small bowel consistent with obstruction and nodular prominence at the base of bladder. Laparotomy with resection of small bowel and multiple biopsies of enlarged mesentric lymph nodes performed. Final path diagnosis: Lymphoma in a "mesenteric mass" and in "small bowel." There was no mention of lymph nodes in the final diagnosis and the detailed micro described the mesenteric mass as just adipose tissue replaced by lymphoma. However, the gross for that specimen states 4 lymph nodes were found in the fat. The small bowel micro described an ulcerated lesion of the small bowel extending into muscularis.
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Primary Site field to C17.9 [small bowel] for the example. When an extranodal organ and that organ's regional nodes are involved, the extranodal site is most likely the primary, unless there is extension from the regional nodes to the organ. If the primary site cannot be determined for a lymphoma diagnosed in both a nodal and extranodal site, code to C77.9 [lymph nodes NOS].
For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.
Date of Diagnosis: How do you code this field when the pathologic confirmation is delayed for 2 months because the clinician decides to "watch and see what happens" to a CT identified mass thought to be either a "metastasis from a previously diagnosed malignancy or a new primary"?
Code the Date of Diagnosis field to the date of the scan. This is the earliest date that a recognized medical practitioner said the patient had cancer. The diagnosis on the CT scan was a malignancy. The only question was whether the mass on the scan was metastatic or a primary.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Testis: What code is used to represent the histology of "mixed germ cell tumor, embryonal carcinoma and mature teratoma" of the testis? See discussion.
Is the teratoma required to be described as "immature" or "malignant" in order to use the histology code of 9081/3 [mixed embryonal carcinoma and teratoma]?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 9081/3 [Teratocarcinoma, mixed embryonal carcinoma and teratoma], in both ICD-O-2 and ICD-O-3.
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.
Histology/Grade, Differentiation--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent the histology "high grade malignant lymphoma with features of so called blastic NK cell cutaneous lymphoma [hematodermic lymphoma]" found on punch biopsy?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Histology field to 9709/3 [cutaneous lymphoma, NOS]. Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 8 [NK cell].
For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.
EOD-Extension--Liver: Can we use CT scan descriptions such as "portal vein thrombosis" or "extensive infiltration of the liver" or "diffuse infiltration of the liver" to code extension for liver primaries? See discussion.
1. Would you code portal vein involvement for a CT scan description of "portal vein thrombosis"?
2. Would you code more than one lobe of the liver as involved for CT scan descriptions of "extensive infiltration of the liver" or "diffuse infiltration of the liver"?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
1. No. Thrombosis can be caused by non-cancerous conditions.
2. Yes. Code the EOD-Extension field to 65 [Multiple (satellite) nodules in more than one lobe of the liver] when "extensive infiltration" or "diffuse infiltration" is stated.
Grade, Differentiation--Breast: Is "histological grade" another way of saying "tubule formation" which would result in the following case having a Bloom-Richardson (BR) score of 7 which would be coded to grade 2? See discussion.
Final path diagnosis stated: Invasive ductal ca, histological grade 3/3, nuclear grade 2/3, mitotic index-moderate.
Yes. Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 2 [Grade 2] for this case. This case has a BR score of 7 which converts to a grade of 2. This pathologist seems to be describing the three parts of the BR system: tubule formation, mitotic activity and nuclear grade.
Reportability: A "gastrointestinal stromal tumor" (GIST) is not always stated to be "malignant" in the path report even though the tumor appears to meet criteria for malignancy. Is the tumor SEER reportable? See discussion.
Evaluation of Malignancy and Prognosis of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Review. Miettinen, M. et al, Human Pathology 2002 May; 33(5) 478-83). This article states there is an increasing number of GISTs because the majority of tumors previously diagnosed as gastrointestinal smooth muscle tumors (leiomyomas, leiomyoblastomas and leiomyosarcomas) are now classified as GISTs. It states that gastrointestinal autonomic nerve tumors (GANTs) are also GISTs based on their KIT positivity and presence of KIT-activating mutations. This article also states that a GIST is probably malignant if it meets the following criteria: 1) Intestinal tumors: Maximum diameter >5 cm or more than 5 mitoses per 50 HPFs. 2) Gastric tumors: Maximum diameter >10 cm or more than 5 mitoses per 50 HPFs.
Some of the path reports that meet these criteria use the word "malignant", and others do not. Some of the cases that are not called "malignant" in the path diagnosis are signed out clinically as "malignant."
The case is reportable if a pathologist or clinician confirms a diagnosis of cancer. If there is no such confirmation, the case is not SEER reportable.
EOD-Extension--Breast: Should clinically mentioned "thickening" of the breast be ignored if the pathology report does not mention thickening or skin involvement? See discussion.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Can clinical "thickening" of the breast be coded to 20-28 extension code when there is no mention of the thickening or skin involvement in the pathology report? How do we code cases when pathology reports don't support the clinical finding of skin involvement.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Do not use code 20-28 when there is no preoperative treatment and the pathology report does not confirm skin invasion. The clinical diagnosis of skin involvement was not supported by the pathology report.
Terminology/EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Lung: Can the term "opacity" be used to code the size of the primary lung tumor when it is given a size in an imaging study but the "opacity" is not referred to as being suspicious for cancer? See discussion.
Example: How do you code tumor size for a lung primary in which the patient had a CT of the chest that describes a "4 cm opacity in the RUL of the lung." A biopsy of the RUL lung is positive for carcinoma? Would your answer be different if the opacity was described as being "suspicious for carcinoma"?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 999 [Not stated] for the example given above. However, if the opacity was described as a "mass" or as "suspicious for cancer," the size could be coded to 040 [4 cm].
An official website of the United States government
Home