Report Produced: 03/26/2023 08:10 AM
|Report||Question ID||Question||Discussion (Ascending)||Answer|
|20091104||MP/H Rules/Histology--Esophagus: How is histology coded for a biopsy of the esophagus with a pathologic diagnosis of "adenocarcinoma, intestinal type" when there is no evidence of a gastric tumor in scans or EDG? See Discussion.||There is a rule for colon to disregard "intestinal type" and code to adenocarcinoma (8140) but no rule for esophagus. How should histology for this esophageal case be coded?||
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Follow MP/H Other Sites Rule H11 and code 8144/3 [Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type]. Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type, is called that because it resembles the normal pattern of adenocarcinoma seen in the large intestines. It is not an indication of the location of the adenocarcinoma. We find that it is not uncommon in the sinuses, stomach, lungs, cervix, and many other organs.
|20091090||First course treatment--Leukemia: How should an allogeneic stem cell transplant for acute myeloid leukemia be coded in the Hematologic Transplant and Endocrine Procedures field? See Discussion.||There is debate as to whether this procedure should be coded as a 12 in order to capture the allogeneic part of the procedure.||Assign code 20 [Stem cell harvest (stem cell transplant) and infusion as first course therapy] for stem cell procedures, even allogeneic procedures.|
|20010128||Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Bladder/Prostatic Urethra: When invasive TCC of the bladder and TCC in-situ of the prostatic urethra are diagnosed at the same time, are they reportable as two primaries? See discussion.||There is no direct extension of tumor from the bladder to the urethra. According to the SEER rules for determining separate primaries, bladder (C67) and urethra (C68) are separate sites. However, it seems that TCC in the bladder and urethra should be reported as a single primary.||
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
This is one primary. Mucosal spread of in situ cancer from a hollow organ (bladder) into another hollow organ (prostatic urethra) is coded as a single primary.
This type of mucosal spread of tumor is sometimes referred to as "intramucosal extension" or " in situ component extending to." Mucosal spread can also be expressed as a statement of an invasive component in one organ with adjacent or associated in situ carcinoma in a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium.
This case represents an invasive bladder tumor with in situ extension to the prostatic urethra. A tumor that is breaking down can be invasive in the center with in situ cancer at its margins. Occasionally, the in situ margin can move into a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium.
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, 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.
|20130192||MP/H Rules/Histology--Pleura: How is histology coded when the pathology report final diagnosis is "malignant neoplasm, compatible with malignant mesothelioma" if the COMMENT section of the pathology report indicates the tumor has a mixed epithelial and sarcomatoid pattern? See Discussion.||This case was discussed with a pathologist who feels the correct histology should be biphasic mesothelioma (9053/3) because there are both epithelial and sarcomatoid components to this tumor. However, applying the current MP/H Rules, the histology is coded to 9050/3 (mesothelioma, NOS) because the term "pattern" cannot be used to code a more specific histologic type for invasive tumors. If this truly is a biphasic mesothelioma, that data is lost for researchers because the current MP/H Rules fail to capture this information. Should the term pattern be used to code the more specific histology in this case?||Code the histology to malignant mesothelioma, NOS [9050/3]. Apply the MP/H Rules as written until they are revised. The word "pattern" and other terms will be reconsidered for the next iteration of the rules.|
|20081089||Multiplicity Counter--Thyroid: How is this field coded for a tumor described as "multinodular carcinoma of the thyroid"? See Discussion.||This information is from a pathology report. No other information is available.||Count the number of measured nodules. If the nodules are not measured, code 99 in the multiplicity counter.|
|20110122||Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is histology coded to AML, NOS [9861/3] for a bone marrow biopsy with a diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia evolving from myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) if the cytogenetics revealed trisomy 13? See Discussion.||This patient actually had no prior diagnosis of MDS. The bone marrow biopsy revealed AML evolving from MDS. Cytogenetics revealed trisomy 13 with no other abnormalities. Does the presence of a trisomy 13 change the histology to a more specific subtype of AML?||
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph..
This should be accessioned as a single primary per Rule M8 which states to abstract as a single primary and code the acute neoplasm when both a chronic (MDS) and an acute (AML) neoplasm are diagnosed simultaneously or within 21 days AND there is documentation of only one positive bone marrow biopsy, lymph node biopsy, or tissue biopsy. Code the histology to 9895/3 [acute myeloid leukemia with myelodysplasia-related changes].
NOTE: When you search with quotation marks around the phrase, the database will only return results with that exact wording. To only return results for the expression trisomy 13, enter in the Heme DB. In this case, a search for "trisomy 13" returns no results. Therefore, it does not impact the coding of histology for this case.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
|20021158||Multiple Primaries/Histology--Lymphoma: What is the primary site(s) for a patient who had a lymph node biopsy with the histology of "large B cell lymphoma arising in the setting of low grade B cell lymphoma c/w marginal zone B cell lymphoma with plasmacytic features"? See discussion.||This patient also had a bone marrow biopsy that demonstrated "low grade B cell lymphoma." Per the clinician, "Pt with discordant lymphoma. We will be approaching his lymphoma as two different diseases. The large B cell had cleared after chemotherapy and radiation therapy. The low grade lymphoma is incurable."||
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Code as two primaries with each arising in lymph nodes [C77._]. The histology for the first primary is 9699/3 [marginal zone B cell lymphoma]. The histology for the second primary is 9680/3 [large B cell lymphoma].
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.
|20110005||Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the pre-2010 histology coded for a "follicular grade 2, non-Hodgkin lymphoma with marginal zone B-cell differentiation"? See Discussion.||This patient was seen in 2010 for the same primary as diagnosed in 2006. The histology was coded to marginal zone lymphoma [9699/3] in 2006. Is this correct? Or should this have been coded as a follicular lymphoma, ignoring the modifying expression "marginal zone B-cell differentiation"?||
This is a 2006 diagnosis. The histology code is 9691/3 [follicular lymphoma, grade 2]. Do not code differentiation for hematopoietic cases.
For diagnoses 2010 and forward, a small number of cases of follicular lymphoma do have marginal zone differentiation. However, there is no code for this variant of follicular lymphoma. It would simply be coded as a follicular lymphoma because that is the most accurate histology code available. The marginal zone differentiation is not to be coded as a second primary (marginal zone lymphoma).
|20071054||Date of Diagnosis: Can the phrase "suspicious for a primary lung tumor" from a CT be used to code date of diagnosis? See Discussion.||Thorax CT on 4/18/05 states 'enlarged RUL nodular opacity suspicious for a primary lung tumor.' Biopsy confirmation was not done until 8/4/05 because patient declined further work-up until then. Would date of diagnoses be 4/18/05 or 8/4/05?||
Code the diagnosis date 08/04/2005 based on the biopsy.
The statement "suspicious for a primary tumor" is not a clinical diagnosis of cancer or malignancy.
|20091030||MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Thyroid: How many primaries should be coded if there is a clinical diagnosis of recurrent thyroid carcinoma in 3/08 in a patient with a history of thyroid carcinoma diagnosed in 1995 with a 2002 clinical recurrence? See Discussion.||Thyroid carcinoma diagnosed in 11/95 and treated with total thyroidectomy (although path report only mentions the left lobe) and ablation. Elevated thyroglobulin level in 11/02, stated to have recurrent carcinoma and again treated with ablation. History on this case states patient had a near total thyroidectomy at diagnosis. Patient is seen again at a third hospital 3/08. Diagnosis again is recurrent carcinoma apparently because of a thyroid mass that is palpable. No treatment was performed and patient expired 4/08. Is this a new primary because of MP/H rule M10?||
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
The pathology report takes precedence over the other information when there is a discrepancy. Based on the information available, only the left thyroid lobe was removed 11/95.
Use the 2007 MP/H rules to evaluate new tumors. If the 3/08 diagnosis represents a new tumor, use the MP/H rules. If the diagnosis in 3/08 is not new tumor, the MP/H rules do not apply.
For this case, a new tumor in 3/08 would be a new primary using rule M10 for Other Sites.