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: 05/01/2025 18:40 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20031116

EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can the term "filling defect" be used to code tumor size? See Description.

Site: Bladder

CT abd/pelvis: 4 cm filling defect of the bladder encasing jetstream of distal ureter. 2-3 cm lesion may be extension to bladder. KUB: 3-4 cm filling defect within bladder.

Cystoscopy: large bladder tumor with small tumor extending out of the large tumor.

OP Findings: Large tumor on right of bladder extending from bladder neck lateral and posterior

Pathology: TURB: High grade TCC, Grade III with focal lamina propria invasion.

For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:

Information on size from imaging/radiographic techniques can be used to code size when there is no more specific size information from a pathology or operative report, but it should be taken as low priority, just above a physical exam.

The term "filling defect" from a CT or KUB may be used to code tumor size for bladder in the absence of more reliable size information from path, operative or endoscopic reports.

 2003
20031132 EOD-Lymph Nodes--Breast: Are micrometastases in the lymph nodes, found only on immunohistochemical staining, coded as positive lymph nodes?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Do not code as positive lymph nodes that have micrometastases diagnosed ONLY on immunohistochemistry. By traditional diagnostic methods, these are still negative lymph nodes.

Summary Stage and EOD ignore the IHC positive micrometastases for cases diagnosed through 2003. The collaborative staging system that begins with 2004 cases and is based on the sixth edition of TNM addresses this issue.

 2003
20031191 EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: How is this field coded when biopsies of the prostatic apex are positive and the physician clinically stages the case as T1c?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code clinical extension to 33 [arising in the prostatic apex] when a biopsy of the prostatic apex is positive for malignancy, with no further evidence of involvement. If biopsies of both the apex and another site within the prostate (for example right lobe) are positive and there is no mention that the malignancy arose in the apex, code extension to 34 [extending into the prostatic apex].

 2003
20031102

Histology (Pre-2007)--Lung: Should the histology "Polymorphic Adenocarcinoma" be coded to 8022/33 [Polymorphic Carcinoma] or 8140/33 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS]?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

The histology code for pleomorphic adenocarcinoma of the lung is 8140 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS]. According to our pathologist consultant, "Given lung as primary site I prefer 8140. This loses the pleomorphic modifier, but going to 8022 loses the adeno- designation which is more important. Pathologists occasionally use pleomorphic carcinoma for lung tumors which otherwise dont show any adeno or squamous differentiation, for which 8022 would be appropriate, but in this case we do have the adeno designation."

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
20031143

Ambiguous terminology/EOD-Extension: Is the term "within" a term of involvement in coding extent of disease? See Description.

For example: a kidney tumor is described as "completely encased within the renal capsule with no extension into perirenal fat." Does this mean the renal capsule has been invaded (extension code 20) or that the tumor is totally contained within an area surrounded by the renal capsule (extension code 10)?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The term "within" is not one of the listed ambiguous terms for EOD. Determine extent of involvement from the context in which "within" appears.

In the example, "Encased" is an ambiguous term meaning not involved. Code extension for the example to 10 [Invasive cancer confined to kidney cortex and/or medulla].

 2003
20031093

Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Is a small bowel carcinoid diagnosed 10 years after the diagnosis of metastatic carcinoid of unknown primary site a new primary or a new recurrence? See Description.

A patient was diagnosed in 1991 with metastatic carcinoid to liver-no primary found. In 2001, the patient is diagnosed with small bowel carcinoid at another hospital. Hospital 2 has no other information.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code as two primaries unless there is a physician's statement that the liver lesion is metastatic from the later small bowel carcinoid. Without such a statement regarding lesions 10 years apart, do not make an assumption that one is metastatic from the other.

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
20031010 EOD-Lymph Nodes--Lung: Are positive "neck nodes" coded to 7 [Distant lymph nodes, other than above (including cervical lymph nodes)] in this field because we do not have a specific lymph node chain named or are they coded to 6 [Contra lateral hilar or mediastinal (incl. bilateral); supraclavicular (transverse cervical), ipsilateral or contralateral; scalene, ipsilateral or contralateral] because this code represents the lowest possible code for involved neck nodes? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD-Lymph Nodes as 7 [Distant lymph nodes, other than above (incl. cervical neck nodes)]. Lymph nodes in the "neck" are distant, rather than regional, for lung. 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
20031032 Diagnostic Confirmation--Hematopoietic, NOS: How should diagnostic confirmation of Hematopoietic diseases be coded in the absence of positive bone marrow? See Description.

Case 1. Patient admitted 9-12-02 with diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia. Per the H&P, patient obviously has had this since January 2001. Per the clinical history: patient with elevated platelets. Path diagnosis of bone marrow biopsy done 9-20-02 showed mildly increased megakaryocytes. 10-31-02 clinical sign-out diagnosis was: essential thrombocythemia.

Case 2. Patient admitted for evaluation of erythrocytosis. Assessment: Increased hematocrit only. It is most likely that patient has polycythemia vera. I think it is reasonable to initiate phlebotomy treatment.

Code 1, Positive histology, includes diagnostic hematologic findings and peripheral blood smears when these are the basis for diagnosis.

When the clinician makes a specific diagnosis and the blood work is not diagnostic, code diagnostic confirmation as 8 [Clinical diagnosis only]. The clinician is putting together all evidence, including the blood work and using his/her professional experience to diagnose the case.

Case 1. The diagnosis is not based on microscopic findings. Assign code 8 [Clinical diagnosis only]. Megakaryocytes are the immature form of thrombocytes, but mildly increased megakaryocytes are not diagnostic of essential thrombocythemia.

Case 2. The diagnosis is not based on microscopic findings. Assign code 8 [Clinical diagnosis only].

 2003
20031147 Reason No Cancer-Directed Surgery--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is this field always coded to 1 [not performed, not part of first course] for leukemias & other hematopoietic diseases? For cases diagnosed 2003 and later: For sites where "Surgery of the primary site" is coded 00 or 98 (hematopoietic included), Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site should be coded as 1 [Surgery of the primary site not performed because it was not part of the planned first course of treatment]. On rare occasions, there may be surgery to the primary site for a hematopoietic disease, such as an excisional biopsy of a myeloid sarcoma. Refer to the "Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases" for cell-type-specific treatment information. 2003