Ambiguous Terminology: Why was 60 days chosen for ambiguous terminology?
The Histology Task Force approved a 60 day time frame for ambiguous terminology.
The majority of cases are first identified by ambiguous terminology; for example, a patient has a mammogram that shows a lesion suspicious for cancer. That first indication of cancer prompts a work-up to either confirm or rule-out the cancer diagnosis.
The data item "Ambiguous terminology" is not intended to capture information on this routine method of detecting and diagnosing cancer. The 60 day time frame should keep these cases out of the ambiguous terminology data item.
The data item is intended to identify those cases where the cancer diagnosis is NOT confirmed during the work-up, but the case is still entered into the database. For example a patient who has a TRUS because of elevated PSA. The pathology from the TRUS says "Suspicious for adenocarcinoma of the prostate." The physician only documents that the patient is to return in 6 months for another PSA and TRUS. The registrar would enter this case into the data base because the word "suspicious" is on the ambiguous terminology list.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: How is "invasive lobular carcinoma with signet ring cell features (95%) and ductal features (5%)" coded for a single tumor diagnosed prior to 2007?
For cases diagnosed 1/1/04-12/31/06, code histology to 8524 [Lobular mixed with other types of carcinoma]. Assuming there is no mention of in situ, Histology Coding Rule 3 applies: Use a mixed histology code if one exists
For cases diagnosed 2007-2014, 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.
MP/H Rules/Histology: In the absence of a tissue diagnosis, should the histology field be coded based on the findings of a suspicious cytology or a CT scan that clinically confirmed the diagnosis? See Discussion.
Cytology (brushings at ERCP) which are highly suspicious of adenocarcinoma. A CT of the abdomen performed the next day shows a mass, most likely Klatskin tumor. Can the histology be coded to Klatskin tumor [8162/3] based on the CT findings?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology to 8162/3 [Klatskin tumor] using the histology from the CT. This case is confirmed clinically based on the CT. It cannot be accessioned based on suspicious cytology.
Rule H8 in the 2007 Histology Coding Rules for Other Sites provides instructions for coding histology when the pathology report and cytology report are not available.
Histology--Corpus uteri: Because coding a pathology final diagnosis of "serous carcinoma" for an endometrial primary to 8441/3 triggers the site/histology error in the SEER Edits, should histology be coded to 8010/3 [Carcinoma, NOS] instead?
Assign histology code 8441 [serous carcinoma] and override the edit. Endometrium with serous carcinoma is NOT one of the "impossible" site / histology combinations.
Radiation Therapy--Prostate: Is the regional treatment modality XRT best coded to 50 (brachytherapy, NOS), 53 (LDR) or 54 (HDR) when the documentation indicates only "I-125 seeds" to the prostate?
Assign code 53 [Brachytherapy, interstitial, LDR] for seeds to the prostate. Seeds are always low dose because they are left in place and the radioactivity decays over time.
Reportability/Terminology--Prostate: Is the diagnosis of "atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma" sufficient to report a prostate cancer if a note states that there is "insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy"? See Discussion.
Date of report is July 2005. One positive specimen of 12.
Specimen 6: Diagnosis = Prostate tissue with a small focus of atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma. Note. There is insufficient cytologic and/or architectural atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy. Negative basal cell staining with cytokeratin... in atypical glands is consistent with the diagnosis of suspicious for adenocarcinoma. In addition, the diagnosis is suppported by a positive staining for alpha-methyl COA racemase (P504S), a recently discovered marker that is preferentially expressed in prostate cancer...
This case is reportable. The diagnosis states "suspicious for adenocarcinoma." "Suspicious for" is a reportable ambiguous term.
The additional stains supported this "suspicious" diagnosis. A more definitive diagnosis could not be made based on this specimen.
Type of Multiple Tumors--Lung: Is this field coded to 40 [Multiple invasive] or 80 [Unk in situ or invasive] when only one nodule is biopsied of multiple existing nodules for a reported single lung primary? See Discussion.
The right lung has 4 tumor nodules in the upper lobe. Biopsy of one tumor is positive for moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma. No other work up performed.
Should code 40 be used because we dont know the behavior of the other nodules?
The best code to use in this case is 40 [multiple invasive]. For lung only, it is assumed that all of the tumors are the same histology and that all are invasive.
Reportability/Histology: Is a case reportable if the Final Diagnosis in a pathology report indicates a non reportable diagnosis but the Diagnosis Comment on the same report indicates a non reportable diagnosis followed by a reportable diagnosis in parenthesis? See Discussion.
08/13/2007 polypectomy final diagnosis: tubulovillous adenoma with severe epithelial atypia. Dx Comment (on same path) ...atypia including focal cribriform glandular architecture (carcinoma in situ).
This case is reportable as carcinoma in situ. The histology code is 8263/2 [adenocarcinoma in situ in a tubulovillous adenoma].
According to our pathologist consultant, a "comment" in a path report is a part of the diagnosis - it often elaborates on or clarifies the diagnosis. Placing [carcinoma in situ] in the comment, even in parentheses, indicates that is the appropriate diagnosis for our purposes.
Multiplicity Counter--Prostate: How is multiplicity counter to be coded for a clinically inapparent prostate cancer for which sextant needle biopsy cores on left and right sides are positive for adenocarcinoma? See Discussion.
Prostate cancer typically presents as multifocal diffuse disease. The coding exercise in the MPH rules presentations coded prostate cancer as one tumor.
Reference: SEER Training Web Casts - Other Sites Rules Practicum
Code the number of tumors present if known. This information can be taken from any part of the record, including imaging and prostatectomy. If the only information available is "diffuse," or "multifocal," assign code 99. Do not assume there are multiple tumors just beacause there are multiple biopsies. When there is no information about the number of tumors, code Multiplicity Counter to 99 and Type of Multiple Tumors to 99.
An official website of the United States government
Home