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: 11/19/2025 08:15 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20071056 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.

 2007
20071127 Multiplicity Counter--Breast: How should the multiplicity counter be coded for a 3.8 cm infiltrating duct carcinoma with two "satellite nodules" measuring 5 mm and 7mm that are not described as either metastases or multiple foci? Include these nodules in the multiplicity counter because they are measured and are part of the final diagnosis on the pathology report. 2007
20071035 CS Extension--Prostate: Should CS Clinical Extension always be coded to 99 [Extension unknown] for prostatic adenocarcinoma found incidentally during surgery for another primary or at autopsy? See Discussion.

Patient had a cystoprostatectomy for bladder cancer. Pathology report states only 2 microscopic foci of prostate adenocarcinoma found on LEFT side of gland. Physician notes state patient has been followed for 4 years with a nodule in the RIGHT prostate and has refused biopsy despite rising PSA. There was no definite statement of suspected cancer.

Should CS Clinical Extension be coded 99 because prostate cancer wasn't clearly stated to have been suspected until cystoprostatectomy? Or could we code the right-sided "nodule" as clinically apparent (CS Extension 20), even though path found tumor only on the left (which is how we would code a standard prostate case)?

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.

Code CS extension 99 [Extension unknown]. This prostate cancer was not clinically evident; it cannot be clinically assessed based on the information provided.

Note: This is an unusual case. A DRE was performed and a nodule was palpated on the right that was not cancer. The other lobe is presumed to have been negative because it was not mentioned.

 2007
20071006 Primary Site: Is an "angiosarcoma" stated as arising in the skin of the breast and treated with a mastectomy, coded to the primary site of skin or breast?

Code the primary site as skin of breast when skin of breast is documented as the site of origin.

According to the WHO classification of soft tissue tumors, the majority of angiosarcomas "develop as cutaneous tumors...less than one quarter present as a deep soft tissue mass."

 2007
20071085 CS Tumor Size/CS Extension--Prostate: Because prostatectomy results are excluded from the CS Extension field for prostate, is code 95 [No evidence of primary tumor] accurate to reflect bilateral lobe involvement of prostate cancer when it is incidentally found following a radical cystectomy for a bladder primary? Why must tumor size be 000 when the CS Extension code is 95?

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.Code prostate CS Extension to 99 [Extension unknown] and code CS Tumor Size according to the information available from the surgery.

CS Extension code 95 [No evidence of primary tumor] should be used only in that rare situation when the only evidence of disease is distant mets or lymph node involvement, no primary tumor found. That is why CS tumor Size must be 000 when CS Extension code 95 is used.

 2007
20071046 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.

 2007
20071099

MP/H rules/Histology--Lung: How is histology coded for a path diagnosis of "pleomorphic carcinoma with adenocarcinoma, squamous, clear cell and spindle components"? Please see discussion.

Path diagnosis of lung tumor is pleomorphic carcinoma, with adenocarcinoma, squamous, clear cell, and spindle cell components. Path comment states: "While the majority of tumor displays usual adenocarcinoma-type features, elsewhere the tumor shows varying differentiation, including squamous, clear cell and spindle cell differentiation. Therefore the tumor is best categorized as pleomorphic carcinoma."

This tumor is best described by a non-specific histology. However, the MP/H rules guide the abstractor to identify a more specific histology. If we work through the lung rules, would we end up using rule H7 and code the histology with the numerically highest ICD-O-3 code?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign histology code 8022 [pleomorphic carcinoma] based on the pathologist's assessment and rule H3. He/she reviewed all of the histologic components and rendered a final diagnosis of pleomorphic carcinoma.

"Components" is not a term indicative of a more specific histology. See note under rule H5.

 2007
20071072 Ambiguous Terminology/Date of Conclusive Terminology: If there is an unknown date of diagnosis, should the Ambiguous Terminology field always be coded to 9 and the Date of Conclusive Terminology be coded to 99999999? See Discussion. Scenario: Mammogram is suspicious for carcinoma, unknown date in 2007. A biopsy prior to admission to reporting facility is positive for carcinoma. Patient seen at reporting facility in June 2007 for treatment. The purpose of the data item "Ambiguous Terminology" is to flag cases entered into the registry based on a diagnosis with ambiguous terminology. Because the case above was entered into the registry based on conclusive terminology, code Ambiguous Terminology to 0 [Conclusive term] and code Date of Conclusive Terminology to 88888888 [not applicable]. 2007
20071068 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries/Histology--Prostate: How many primaries should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded for a case in which the pathology specimen showed adenocarcinoma in 20% of the tissue and sarcoma in 50% of the tissue? See Discussion.

Patient has TURP. The final path diagnosis is adenocarcinoma in 20% of tissue and sarcoma in 50% of tissue.

Because it is unknown whether there is a single or multiple tumors, rule M1 (Other Sites) is used which states the case is to be abstracted as a single primary.

Single invasive histology rules are followed to rule H16, but table 2 does not contain a mixed code for this situation, even though ICD-O-3 has a code 8933/3 for "adenosarcoma". Therefore, rule H17 is applied that states to use the highest code, which in this case would be 8800/3 [Sarcoma, NOS]. Is this correct?

For cases diagnosed 2007-2014, code as two primaries, one adenocarcinoma and the other sarcoma.

This is two tumors (adenocarcinoma and separate sarcoma) until proven otherwise. Do not code as adenosarcoma, as this is a gyn-specific diagnosis. Adenosarcoma of the prostate is not a recognized entity in the WHO classification of prostate tumors.

 2007
20071050 MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: Regarding histology rule H21, is there a hierarchy or do you code the higher histology if there is an adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp and an adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

If you arrive at H21 and have an additional decision to make regarding the use of 8210, 8261 or 8263, you must make another pass through the histology rules. The second pass will determine which of the two or three histology codes to assign. The answer will vary depending of the specifics of the case.

Example:

Transverse colon: Adenocarcinoma in an adenomatous polyp involving muscularis propria and adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma involving subserosa of transverse colon. Start with rule H15 because there are multiple tumors. Stop at H21 -- code either 8210 or 8261. To decide between 8210 and 8261, make a second pass through the histology rules, starting again with H15. Stop at H20. Code the histology of the most invasive tumor, 8210 [Adenocarcinoma in adenomatous polyp].

 2007