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.
Ambiguous Terminology: How is this field to be coded when there is a "conclusive term" exactly 60 days following the initial diagnosis? See Discussion.
Is code 1 [Ambiguous terminology diagnosis only within 60 days of initial diagnosis] or code 2 [Ambiguous term followed by a conclusive term more than 60 days after the initial diagnosis] to be used for a case that had a conclusive diagnosis at 60 days from initial diagnosis? The instructions on page 97 do not match the code definitions on page 95.
The definition for code 2 should be "More than 60 days" after the date of diagnosis.
Code 1 is 60 days or less, code 2 is more than 60 days.
This will be clarified in the first revision to the MP/H manual.
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.
Multiplicity Counter: Are in situ tumors diagnosed more than 60 days after invasive tumors of the same site and histology included in the Multiplicity Counter?
If an in situ tumor following an invasive tumor is a single primary according to the multiple primary rules for that particular site, include the in situ and the invasive tumors in the multiplicity counter.
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].
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.
Multiple Primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries should be recorded in a patient with von Hippel Lindau disease that has a hemangioblastoma of the cerebellum in 2003 and a hemangioblastoma of the brainstem in 2007?
A tumor of the cerebellum (C716) and a tumor of the brainstem (C717) are multiple primaries because the topography codes are different at the fourth character of site.
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.
Date of Conclusive Terminology: Is there an applicable timeframe when coding this field?
There is no strict timeframe for Date of Conclusive Terminology. The diagnosis using conclusive terminology could be made any time following the diagnostic work-up.
The date of conclusive terminology is related to code 2 [ambiguous term followed by conclusive term] in the data item "Ambiguous terminology." Assign code 2 when a conclusive diagnosis is made 60 days or more after a diagnosis using ambiguous terminology. Record the date of the conclusive diagnosis in "Date of Conclusive Terminology."
MP/H Rules--Urinary: How many primaries are abstracted when a patient has a May 2000 invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder, a November 2004 invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the right ureter and a May 2007 urothelial carcinoma in situ of both the left and right ureters?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Using the pre-2007 multiple primary rules, the PTCC of the bladder in 2000 and the invasive TCC of the right ureter in Nov. 2004 would have been abstracted as separate primaries.
Use the 2007 MP/H rules to evaluate the May 2007 diagnosis. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M8. The May 2007 diagnosis is the same primary.
Rule M4 does not apply because of the 2000 bladder primary. A clarification will be added to M4 to stress that for the urinary rules, any urinary tumor up to the present point in time is counted when applying this rule.
An official website of the United States government
Home