System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 02/09/2026 21:41 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021136 Date of Diagnosis/Histology (Pre-2007): How should we code these fields for "atypical fibroxanthoma" of the left cheek diagnosed in October 1999 that is followed by a June 2000 punch biopsy with a microscopic description in the pathology report of "superficial form of malignant fibrous histiocytoma"? See discussion. Should the diagnosis date for the malignant fibrous histiocytoma be October 1999 because it is called "residual/recurrent atypical fibroxanthoma" in the June 2000 final diagnosis of pathology report? In the microscopic description it is called a "malignant fibrous histiocytoma." Per an August 2000 outpatient note, "The patient probably has malignant fibrous histiocytoma. His course has been more aggressive than that seen with an atypical fibroxanthoma."

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8830/3 [Malignant fibrous histiocytoma]. Code the Date of Diagnosis to October 1999 based on the clinician's statement of "The patient probably has malignant fibrous histiocytoma. His course has been more aggressive than that seen with an atypical fibroxanthoma." Assume that this statement means that the physician re-evaluated the clinical course and decided that the original tumor must have been malignant.

If the original slides are reviewed and the diagnosis is changed to a malignancy or if the clinician states that the first occurrence was obviously malignant, backdate the date of diagnosis to the first occurrence.

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.

 2002
20021063 EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Examined: What code is used to represent this field when a path report from a lymph node biopsy or dissection describes lymph node "portions" or "fragments"? See discussion.

1) Lymph nodes, right pelvic dissection: No evidence of malignancy in 4 portions of lymph node examined. (Should we code the number examined as 01, 04, or 97?)

2) Lymph nodes, left pelvic dissection: 5 fragments of lymph nodes show no evidence of malignancy. (Should we code the number examined as 05 or 97?)

3) Biopsy of right neck mass: Malignancy in fragments of lymph nodes. The following month, pt had a right modified lymph node dissection: 16/32 lymph nodes are positive for malignancy. (Should we code the number examined as 32, 33, 97, 98?)

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

The total number of lymph nodes examined is recorded in EOD-Num of Reg LN Examined. If the number of actual lymph nodes represented by the "fragments" or "portions" cannot be determined, assign code 96, 97, or 98 as appropriate.

1) Based on the terminology "four portions of lymph node (singular)" code to 01 despite "dissection" terminology.

2) Code to 97 based on "fragments of lymph nodes (pleural)" terminology and procedure identified as dissection.

3) Code to 97 based on statement of "fragments of lymph nodes (pleural)" for biopsy plus dissection.

 2002
20021052

EOD-Extension--Pancreas: Should these terms be ignored when coding extension to 10 or 30, or do they indicate involvement for non-surgically treated pancreas primaries?

1) Stricture of the common bile duct

2) Common bile duct is narrowed

3) Common bile duct is obstructed

4) Common bile duct dilation

5) Malignant stricture of the common bile duct

6) Ampullary or common bile duct stricture with a negative biopsy or brush.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Ignore these terms when coding extension to 10 or 30. These terms do not verify involvement by pancreatic cancer of the organs mentioned. Other non-malignant circumstances could cause these conditions.

 2002
20021133

First Course Treatment--All Sites: The patient has undergone part of the planned first course of treatment when a metastatic deposit is identified. If the patient continues with the planned first course of treatment, should the modalities of treatment given after the metastatic deposit is discovered be included in the coding of the first course of cancer-directed treatment fields?

Yes, those modalities should be counted as part of first course of cancer-directed treatment if the patient continues with the planned first course. For example, if patient has the originally planned type of surgery, radiation, or drug protocol, then code the given treatment as first course.

Caution: It is not a change in the treatment plan if the drugs are changed but the action of the drugs remains the same. This is still first course. However, if the treatment is changed from a chemotherapy drug to a hormonal drug following the discovery of the mets, do not code the hormonal therapy as first course.

 2002
20031207 Hormone Therapy--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is hormonal therapy coded for myelodysplastic syndrome, NOS? See Description. Patient with myelodysplastic syndrome refused chemotherapy and was treated with high dose steroids. Patient also received Rituxan. Hormones, such as glucocorticoids and androgens, are generally of little if any benefit to patients with myelodysplastic syndrome, according to the NCI PDQ. Do not code steroids as treatment in the example above. 2003
20031007 EOD Extension--Lung: Do we ignore pericardial effusion seen on a CXR if a subsequent lobectomy reveals only a localized tumor? See discussion. Note 6 in the lung EOD scheme instructs us to assume that a pleural effusion is negative if a resection is done. Does this also apply to a pericardial effusion? For example, if a pericardial effusion is seen on CXR, and a subsequent lobectomy reveals only a localized tumor, should the effusion be ignored? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Ignore pericardial effusion which is negative for tumor. Assume that a pericardial effusion is negative if a resection is done and the tumor is pathologically confirmed to be localized. 2003
20031079 Primary Site: Should we code C80.9 [unknown primary] or code C34.9 [Lung] according to the terminology, "most likely site of origin is lung"? See Description.

We have a case of metastatic keratinizing squamous cell ca. The work-up shows small densities in the lung that may represent inflammatory or chronic changes. No other imaging that shows origin. Physical exam states 2 months of left axillary mass. H/O SCCA of the skin involving chest wall.

Path reads: Metastatic w/d keratinizing SCCA. This lesion almost undoubtedly represents mets. The most likely site of origin is lung followed by esophageal primary or head & neck. The final discharge states, "Metastatic SCCA to Left Axilla".

Code the primary site according to the physicians' opinion, especially the treatment decision. If the physician treats the patient for a lung primary, code primary site as lung. If the primary site cannot be determined, code C80.9.

According to the pathologist, the most likely primary site for the example above is lung. The final discharge diagnosis does not reflect the pathologist's opinion, and does not contradict it either. If there is no conflicting medical opinion, code primary site to C34.9 [lung].

 2003
20031153 Laterality/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Ovary: Are ovarian primaries with bilateral involvement always coded to laterality 4 (bilateral)? See Description. Example: "Right ovary with mass replacing majority of ovarian tissue consistent with serous adenoca. Lt ovary with foci of adenoca." No specific statement of primary. Can we assume that the malignancy originated in the right ovary since it is more extensively involved or should laterality be coded 4 because both ovaries have tumor?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

If one ovary is listed as the primary site, code laterality to that ovary. The example above is one of those times when you would code to the single ovary. The issue of one or both ovaries being involved is handled in staging.

Abstract the example above as a single primary with code 1 [Right] for laterality.

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.

 2003
20031084 Histology (Pre-2007)--Colon: What code is used to represent the histology "Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type?" See Description. The code 8144/3 is not valid for colon primaries. Should we code these as 8140/3 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS] or over-ride the error message?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code adenocarcinoma, intestinal type of the colon 8140 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS]. Do not use code 8144 for intestinal type adenocarcinoma in the colon.

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.

 2003
20031170 Terminology, NOS/Recurrence/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Is the term "residual disease" equivalent to "recurrence"? See Description.

Example 1. Patient underwent excision and re-excision of lentigo maligna in 1998. Final path showed close but negative margins. In 1999 a biopsy of a brown patch (over the scar) in the same location was done. Pathology reported residual lentigo maligna. Is the 1999 melanoma a new primary because it was diagnosed more than two months after the first melanoma and there is no mention of recurrence? Or is the term "residual" another way of saying recurrence?

Example 2. In 1999, patient underwent excisonal biopsy of intraductal carcinoma of the right breast, followed by radiation therapy. In 2000, mammogram showed calcifications in right breast. Biopsy was done with path showing residual ductal carcinoma in situ. There is no mention of recurrence. Is this one or two primaries?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

According to our pathologist consultant, "residual" disease indicates incomplete eradication of the original disease process. Residual means that the disease process was not completely removed/eradicated in the initial therapy. Therefore cells from the original primary were never completely removed or destroyed.

In each example above, this is not a recurrence per se but rather

progression of disease. Do not abstract the latter diagnosis as a new primary.

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.

 2003