EOD-Pathological Extension--Prostate: How is this field coded when biopsy findings differ from prostatectomy findings? See Description.
Needle biopsy of prostate clearly states cancer arising in the apex. Clinical extension would then be 33. After prostatectomy, the path report states only one lobe involved with cancer and the apex was negative for cancer. Would the pathological extension then be coded to a 20 to truly reflect the surgical findings?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Combine the information from the needle biopsy and the prostatectomy and code the pathologic EOD to 34 [Extending to the prostatic apex]. The case example above is very similar to Example 4 on page 2 of the Prostate EOD Coding Guidelines.
Surgery of Primary Site--Lung: Is a core-out of the main bronchus coded in this field? See Description.
Patient with right lung cancer was not a surgical candidate because of extent of disease. Prior to receiving radiation, patient underwent bronchoscopy, which revealed obstruction from right main bronchial tumor. Core-out of the tumor was undertaken, and a specimen was sent for path evaluation. The physician stated that this was a palliative procedure to relieve obstruction.
Do not code bronchoscopy to clear the airway as surgery of primary site. When combined with laser therapy, cryosurgery, or other tumor destruction, or when combined with excision of tumor, code as surgery of primary site.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code surgery of primary site for the case described above to 23 [Excision, NOS]. Tissue was excised and sent to pathology.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Date of diagnosis--Cervix: How is this field coded when initially carcinoma in situ is diagnosed by biopsy and at a later date invasive tumor is found pathologically?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Since carcinoma in situ of the cervix is not reportable to SEER (as of 1/1/1996), the diagnosis date is the date of the invasive diagnosis.
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.
EOD-Lymph Nodes/EOD-Extension: Does extracapsular lymph node extension into adjacent tissue or organs affect EOD coding? See Description.
For a lung primary a PET scan showed marked uptake in the right hilum consistent with metastatic disease. A radical pneumonectomy was performed and the operative findings showed that the pulmonary artery was involved with a mass.
Pathology: Small cell carcinoma in the lung parenchyma. The distal bronchi showed obstructive pneumonitis. There were mets found on 02/05 on the hilar lymph nodes and 00/02 peribronchial nodes. The mets in the hilar nodes extended beyond the lymph node capsule into the pulmonary artery.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Extracapsular lymph node extension does not affect the extent of disease. Code the extent of regional lymph node involvement in EOD lymph nodes.
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.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: How do we code this field when there is a difference between the size of the tumor mentioned in the gross (i.e., macroscopic description) and the comment sections of a pathology report? See Description.
Path Macro Summary states size as 1.5 cm. The path comment states "largest area of tumor seen is 1.5 cm. However, 8 of the nearly contiguous sections are involved with an estimated 2.4 cm area of involvement."
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the size of the largest area of tumor from the path macro summary. For the example provided, code the size as 015 [1.5 cm]. In this case, the additional sections of tumor described in the path comment do not seem to represent pieces of one larger tumor. The 2.4 cm estimated area of involvement was determined by adding together noncontiguous tumor sections. According to the CAP protocol for breast, Note J "When 2 or more distinct invasive tumors are present, each is separately measured...they are not combined into a single larger size."
Histology (Pre-2007)--Kidney: Is 8316/3 [Cyst associated renal cell carcinoma] the appropriate code for 1) Cystic renal cell carcinoma, 2) Renal cell carcinoma mass with cystic areas and 3) Cystic renal cell carcinoma, clear cell type?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Yes, ICD-O-3 histology code 8316 is the correct code for the three examples above.
There are two categories of cyst-associated renal cell carcinomas: Renal cell carcinoma originating in a cyst, and Cystic renal cell carcinoma.
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 (Pre-2007)/Primary Site/Diagnostic Confirmation: How would these fields be coded for a diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma based on clinical findings only? See Discussion.
We have a case of reported "cholangiocarcinoma" of the liver diagnosed only by a CT of the abdomen. There is no pathologic confirmation. CT ABD: Heterogeneous liver mass suspicious for cholangiocarcinoma; mass causes right portal & right hepatic vein occlusion & right and left biliary duct dilatation....
Should this be coded to cholangiocarcinoma by radiology alone and should it be liver as primary site?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code according to the prevailing medical opinion in this case. If no further information can be obtained, code as cholangiocarcinoma of the intrahepatic bile duct.
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.
EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: If there is no mention of vocal cord mobility, do we code indicating normal vocal cord mobility or do we code EOD-Extension to a "localized, NOS?" See discussion.
How do we code EOD-extension for the following tumor of the supraglottic larynx? Limited stage small cell cancer of epiglottis per discharge signout. Physical exam revealed swelling of anterior aspect of epiglottis and narrowing of epiglottis. Neck without palpable masses. Laryngoscopy with biopsy and esophagoscopy showed extensive tumor involving entire laryngeal surface of epiglottis, extending onto aryepiglottic fold, onto false vocal cords and onto left true vocal cord. Ventricle on left side was obliterated with tumor. Right true vocal cord free of tumor. There is no information regarding vocal cord mobility. Biopsy of the left true vocal cord was negative. Should EOD-extension be coded to 20 [Tumor involves more than one subsite of supraglottis without fixation or NOS] or 50 [Localized NOS]?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, if vocal cord mobility is not mentioned, code as normal mobility. Code EOD-extension for the example case as 20 [Tumor involves more than one subsite of supraglottis without fixation or NOS].
An official website of the United States government
Home