CS Extension/CS Mets: For primary sites within the peritoneum (abdominalpelvic walls) such as stomach, colon, does the presence of malignant ascites affect the coding of CS Extension or CS Mets?
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.
The Collaborative Staging system is governed by site-specific coding rules. Refer to each set of site rules rather than looking for a general answer for all sites in peritoneum. In particular, Ovary and Corpus allow malignant ascites to be coded in CS Extension, but not CS Mets at Dx. For each site, both CS Extension and CS Mets at Dx should be checked for the proper field to code malignant ascites.
CS Extension--Bladder: Can the physician TNM be viewed as a clarifying statement when it provides information not documented elsewhere in medical record as in the example of a pathology report for bladder primary that demonstrates extension into bladder muscle, NOS but the physician documented TNM notes a more definitive T code for depth of muscle invasion? See Discussion.
In the Collaborative Stage manual in general instructions this guideline exists:
"The extent of disease may be described only in terms of T (tumor), N (node), and M (metastasis) characteristics. In such cases, assign the code in the appropriate field that corresponds to the TNM information. If there is a discrepancy between documentation in the medical record and the physician's assignment of TNM, the documentation takes precedence..." (Similar to language to use SEER information over TNM).
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Yes, you may code CS extension using the physician assigned "T" when it provides information not found elsewhere in the medical record.
Reportability/Grade, Differentiation: Does the term "grade 0" refer to differentiation or does its use as a modifying phrase in the final diagnosis of "grade 0 immature teratoma" impact reportability?
Regarding the term "grade 0" for an immature teratoma, determine whether the pathologist is using that term to describe the primary tumor or its implants. The term can be used to describe both situations.
An immature teratoma (IT) may have grade 0 (benign) implants. Grade 0 implants may affect the prognosis and treatment, but the primary tumor (IT) would still be malignant and therefore reportable. If grade 0 pertains to the primary tumor (as opposed to implants) it is benign, and therefore not reportable.
Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a "Myelodysplasia, refractory macrocytic anemia with multilineage dysplasia" reportable?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Yes, myelodysplasia, refractory macrocytic anemia with multilineage dysplasia is reportable. This is a type of refractory anemia. Refractory anemia is reportable.
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.
First Course Treatment: If an "aromatase inhibitor" used as a complement to Tamoxifen is treatment, how should it be coded?
When an aromatase inhibitor is part of the planned first course of therapy, code it under hormone treatment.
When a change of drug is PLANNED, it is part of the same course even if subcategories change. This is the usual situation with Tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitor (for example: Femara). The switch to Femara is planned, so it is not a new course. When a drug change happens that is not planned, it is still the same course if both drugs are in the same category and subcategory. An unplanned drug change to a different subcategory would be a new course.
MP/H Rules/Recurrence--Breast: Do we use a pathologists comment of "recurrent ductal carcinoma" found in the pathology report for a new specimen to determine whether the new specimen actually represents a new primary or recurrent disease? See Discussion.
The patient had a left breast cancer LIQ, ductal with DCIS. Nodes (-) diagnosed in 1998
Treatment: Lumpectomy-clear margins
Refused radiation
Hormone therapy: Tamoxifen
Present: June 2007
Left breast-invasive ductal ca, UOQ
Pathology report comments: Recurrent ductal ca.
Left axillary nodes (+)
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, apply the 2007 MP/H breast rules. Go to the multiple tumors module and begin with rule M4. Stop at rule M5: tumors diagnosed more than 5 years apart are multiple primaries.
The only time you can accept a pathologist's statement of recurrence is when the statement is made based on a review of the slides from the previous diagnosis compared to the slides from the current diagnosis.
Multiplicity Counter/Type of Multiple Tumors--Breast: How are these data items coded for a single breast primary composed of both in situ and invasive disease when measurements are provided for both the invasive and in insitu components? See Discussion.
Breast cancer, invasive duct carcinoma with DCIS, 1.3 cm, DCIS 3.7 cm. "The in situ carcinoma is very extensive in this lumpectomy. It is present contiguously from sides 1A through 1L sparing only the final 8 mm of medial margin. In situ and invasive carcinoma are prominently present along almost the entire superior margin." Is the mult counter 02 with Type of mult tumor 30, or one tumor?
Because there are individual measurements for each of these tumors, code the multiplicity counter 02 [Two tumors present]. Code Type of Multiple Tumor as 30 [In situ and invasive].
MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Which report and diagnosis should be used to code the histology if an excisional biopsy that removes the majority of the tumor has a diagnosis of "carcinoma," and the subsequent lumpectomy diagnosis is "microscopic residual disease consistent with infiltrating duct carcinoma"?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code histology for this case to 8010 [carcinoma]. The histology is coded from the pathology report with the most representative specimen (the most tumor tissue) even when the most representative specimen has a less specific histology.
Reportability--Brain and CNS: In addition to Schwannoma, are there additional types of benign tumors that arise in peripheral nerves along the spinal cord that are not reportable? See Discussion.
Are neuroepitheliomatous neoplasms such as ganglioneuroma, gangliocytoma, ganglioglioma occurring along the spinal cord reportable? Are nerve sheath tumors such as neuroma occurring along the spinal cord reportable? Angioma?
Reference: SINQ 20051071; Primary Central Nervous System Tumors, NPCR Training Materials 2004
Reportability depends on the location of the tumor. Tumors in the following sites are reportable:
C700 - C709
C710 - C719
C720 - C729
C751 - C753
Benign and borderline tumors of the peripheral nerves (C47_), including peripheral nerves along the spinal cord, are not reportable.
Please note: spinal schwannomas arising in the nerve root or spinal dura are reportable.
Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Esophagus: Is a case with a biopsy diagnosis of "... focal areas suspicious for adenocarcinoma in situ change" reportable if the diagnosis on the partial esophagectomy specimen only includes the phrase "... with foci of high grade dysplasia; no invasive carcinoma identified"?
The case is not reportable.
The biopsy with a suspicious result (suspicious for adenocarcinoma) was disproven by the esophagectomy.
An official website of the United States government
Home