Back to Search Results

Report Produced: 12/01/2022 17:50 PM

Report Question ID (Ascending) Question Discussion Answer
20190106

Tumor Size--Esophagus: Can information from the endoscopy procedure that implies a size of 3 cm for Tumor Size--Clinical be used for Esophagus? See Discussion.

1-28-2018 CT Scan: 2.4 cm mass

2-15-2018 Endoscopy: Mass was present 22 to 25 cm. Biopsies were taken with cold forceps for histology; biopsy positive.

For the case you describe, we would record the clinical tumor size stated on the CT report.

The priority order for clinical tumor size is as follows.

1. Biopsy or operative (surgical exploration) report

2. Imaging

3. Physical exam

We do not recommend coding tumor size based on an inferred tumor size from a description such as "Mass was present 22 to 25 cm." Look for an actual measurement of the mass, or a stated tumor size. Use text fields to record details.

20190107

First Course Treatment/Chemotherapy--Colon: Is maintenance therapy coded as part of the first course of treatment or as part of subsequent course of treatment?

Patient was diagnosed with Stage IV colon cancer (liver metstasiss) and started on Folfox with Avastin. The medical oncologist decided to continue maintenance treatment with Xeloda and Avastin.

Per Colon NCCN Guidelines Version 3.2019, interest in the use of maintenance therapy approach after first-line treatment of unresectable, metastatic colorectal cancer is growing. In general, this approach involves intensive first-line therapy, followed by less intensive therapy until progression in patients with good response to initial treatment.

Colon Therapy

5/1/18 Colonoscopy biopsy: mod diff colon adenoca, MMR proficient, BRAF wild type

5/5/18 Liver biopsy: mets from colon cancer

6/18/18 " 11/20/2018 Med Onc: started 12 cycles Chemo - Folfox (Fluorouracil, leucovorin, Oxaliplatin) with Avastin

11/28/18 CT Pelvis: continued improvement in the liver mets; no residual tumor involving colon; no new mas or adenopathy in the chest, abdomen or pelvis

12/02/18 Med Onc follow up: Pt had tremendous response to chemotherapy and Avastin, cancer is not curable. Is amenable to maintenance therapy with Xeloda and Avastin; also amenable to descending colectomy in the future

1/7/19 Med Onc: starting maintenance treatment Xeloda + Avastin.

Code the maintenance therapy as first course when the maintenance therapy includes at least one of the drugs from the original treatment. Use text fields to record the details.

20190108

Primary site--Breast: how is subsite coded for a breast cancer when it is described as central portion between 1-3:00 or central portion at 12:00?

See the SEER coding guidelines for breast, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2018/AppendixC/Coding_Guidelines_Breast_2018.pdf Generally, codes C502 - C505 are preferred over C501. C501 would be preferred over C508. Apply these general guidelines when there is no other way to determine the subsite using the available medical documentation.

Table 1, Primary Site codes, in the breast solid tumor rules also provide helpful information for coding site.

20200002

Reportability/In situ--Prostate: Has there been a change in reportability for prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN III) (C619)? The 2018 SEER Manual notes: Collection stopped effective with cases diagnosed 01/01/2001 and later; however, on the casefinding list effective 10/01/2019, code D07.5, carcinoma in situ of prostate, is listed as reportable.

PIN III is not reportable in accordance with the 2018 SEER Manual; however, carcinoma in situ of the prostate is reportable as they represent different histology codes. The casefinding list is used to search for reportable cases and is not the same as a reportable list.

20200003

Histology--Penis: What is the histology code of a glans penis primary with the final diagnosis squamous cell carcinoma, verrucous type? See Discussion.

Penile mass excision shows final diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma, verrucous type. Subsequent partial penectomy has a final diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma, verrucous type and the summary cancer data lists

Both the final diagnosis and summary cancer data indicate a histology code of 8051/3 (squamous cell carcinoma, verrucous type / verrucous carcinoma). However, this site and histology combination triggers edit IFN4911. Edit documentation indicates that for sites C600-C609 (all penile sites) use histology code 8051 and do not use 8054.

Review of the 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology Updates table does not indicate these terms are synonymous.

Code squamous cell carcinoma, verrucous type of the penis as verrucous carcinoma (8051/3). In WHO Classification of Tumors of the Male Urinary System and Male Genital Organs, 4th edition, tumors of the penis, verrucous carcinoma is described as an extremely differentiated keratinizing papillomatous and acanthotic neoplasm; it accounts for 2-3% of penile squamous cell carcinomas.

The coding of condylomatous carcinoma and warty carcinoma changed from 8051/3 to 8054/3 in 2018 for penile sites only in the 2018 ICD-O-3 New Codes, Behaviors, and Terms-Updated 8/22/18.

Override the edit until the edit issue is explored.

20200004

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Lung: How are Primary Site and EOD Primary Tumor coded when a patient is diagnosed with four invasive tumors in the right lung that represent three separate primaries, but the not otherwise specified (NOS) tumor and one of the specific subtype/variants are in separate lobes? See Discussion.

There are four invasive tumors in the right lung:

Large cell undifferentiated carcinoma in the right lower lobe (8012/3, C343);

Adenocarcinoma, acinar-predominant in the right lower lobe (8551/3, C343) that was 0.7 cm in size and limited to the lung;

Mucinous adenocarcinoma in the right upper lobe (8253/3, C341) that was 0.9 cm and limited to the lung;

Adenocarcinoma, NOS also in the right upper lobe (8140/3, C341) that was 1 cm and limited to the lung.

The Lung M Rules confirm the large cell undifferentiated carcinoma is a separate primary from the three adenocarcinoma tumors (Rule M8). The acinar adenocarcinoma and mucinous adenocarcinoma tumors are separate primaries (Rule M6). The adenocarcinoma, NOS tumor is considered the same primary as both the acinar and mucinous are adenocarcinomas (Rule M7).

How is Primary Site coded for both the acinar and mucinous adenocarcinomas if they represent multiple tumors reported as a single primary (when compared to the adenocarcinoma, NOS tumor)?

Should the adenocarcinoma, NOS tumor also be included when coding EOD Primary Tumor for both the right lower lobe acinar adenocarcinoma and right upper lobe mucinous adenocarcinoma primaries? Further follow-up with the physician is not possible.

Abstract three primaries using 2018 Lung Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M6 and M8 as these are multiple synchronous tumors.

M6 (Subtypes in Column 3 of Table 3):

Adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant:

Primary Site: C343 (RLL)

EOD Primary Tumor: 300

Mucinous adenocarcinoma

Primary Site: C341 (RUL)

EOD Primary Tumor: 300

M8 (Separate rows in Table 3):

Large cell undifferentiated carcinoma:

Primary Site: C343 (RLL)

EOD Primary Tumor: 300

Note: The adenocarcinoma, NOS, along with the other subtypes, is on a different row than the large cell undifferentiated carcinoma and is already accounted for in Rule 6 as multiple synchronous tumors.

Do not include the adenocarcinoma, NOS in EOD Primary Tumor for the reportable primaries.

20200005

Multiple Primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned and what M rule applies when a patient is diagnosed with both plasmablastic lymphoma and at least one plasmacytoma? See Discussion.

The patient was diagnosed with an EBV-positive plasmablastic lymphoma involving the left testis on radical orchiectomy in April 2019.

In September 2019, a plasmacytoma was found on a right mandibular mass biopsy. Imaging at that time revealed diffuse disease involving the thoracic spine and sinus involvement. The patient then underwent a resection of the T8 spinal/epidural tumor that also proved plasmacytoma.

Subsequently, the right mandibular mass and testis slides were reviewed (at an outside facility) and both were stated to be, The T8/epidural tumor pathology was not reviewed, so it is unclear if this is also assumed to be the same disease process as the right mandibular mass or still considered a separate, solitary plasmacytoma.

Additionally, some chart notes indicate the patient has plasmablastic lymphoma with a secondary diagnosis of plasmacytoma, while other chart notes state this is stage IV plasmablastic lymphoma involving all documented sites. Although the plasmablastic lymphoma and at least the plasmacytoma of T8 have different ICD-O-3 histology codes, the physicians do seem to be treating this as a single disease process.

Abstract multiple primaries using the Heme and Lymphoid Rule M15. The Multiple Primaries Calculator shows that the plasmablastic lymphoma (9735/3) and extraosseus plasmacytoma (9734/3) are separate primaries. We also checked with our expert pathologist who concurs as the spinal lesion was not reviewed to prove that it is plasmablastic lymphoma, therefore, the diagnosis as per pathology remains plasmacytoma.

20200006

Reportability--Retina: Is a diagnosis of retinal astrocytoma reportable? See Discussion.

There is no specific ICD-O-3 code for a which resulted in abstractors assigning the malignant astrocytoma, NOS code. These lesions were previously called but we are seeing the new terminology more frequently.

Report retinal astrocytoma. The WHO Classification of Tumors of the Eye, 4th edition, lists astrocytoma, NOS as 9400/3 with astrocytic hamartoma of the retina as a synonym. You may receive a site/type edit (IF25) which can be overridden.

The changes in terminology, codes, etc. proposed in WHO 4th Ed Eye book were implemented for cases diagnosed 1/1/2018 forward. Apply this to retina astrocytomas and do not accession cases diagnosed with this histology prior to 1/1/2018.

20200007

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient is simultaneously diagnosed with systemic mastocytosis and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML-0) on a single bone marrow biopsy? See Discussion.

The Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms Database (Heme DB) definition for systemic mastocytosis with an associated hematological neoplasm (SM-AHN, 9741/3) states SM-AHN is a variant of systemic mastocytosis that arises with a myeloid disease of non-mast cell lineage (e.g., MDS, MPN, etc.) and that,

However, SINQ 20130172 conflicts with the Heme DB stating the systemic mastocytosis and the associated hematological neoplasm are a single primary coded to a single histology (9741/3) per Rule M2.

Abstract a single primary when the diagnosis is systemic mastocytosis with an associated clonal hematogoical non-mast cell lineage disease (SM-AHNMD) (9741/3). However, if the patient has a previous history of myelodysplastic syndrome, myeloproliferative neoplasm, myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm or acute leukemia, abstract the SM-AHNMD as a second primary as stated in the Heme DB.

SINQ 20130172 represents a single primary as there is no mention of a prior history of myelodysplastic syndrome, myeloproliferative neoplasm, myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm or acute leukemia.

20200008

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Corpus uteri: How many primaries are accessioned for patient with a minimally invasive endometrial adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp in 2001, followed by a metastatic poorly differentiated clear cell carcinoma of gynecologic (GYN) origin in 2019? See Discussion.

The patient has a history of a minimally invasive endometrial adenocarcinoma that was low grade and confined to an endometrial polyp in 2001. The patient underwent a total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAH/BSO) that entirely removed the tumor at that time.

Almost 18 years later, the patient had a left inguinal mass excision that was, Carcinoma of gynecologic origin, consistent with clear cell carcinoma. No other disease was found, the physician never indicated whether this was felt to be metastatic from the previous, low grade adenocarcinoma or not. It was only noted as, an unusual malignancy of the left lower quadrant and inguinal region of gynecologic origin. No further information was available in the medical record or from the physician on follow-up.

Although neither the Solid Tumor Rules nor the MPH Rules (still in use for the Other Sites schema) apply to metastasis, given the differences in histology and behavior of these two tumors (i.e., minimally invasive, low grade disease diagnosed in 2001 vs. higher grade, more aggressive tumor in 2019) should the current clear cell carcinoma of GYN origin really be considered the same primary as the 2001 endometrial adenocarcinoma?

Abstract a multiple primaries using 2018 Other Sites Solid Tumor Rule M10 as these tumors are more than one year apart. This represents endometrioid adenocarcinoma (8380/3 of C541) and 18 years later, clear cell Carcinoma (8310/3 consistent with GYN (C579) primary).