SEER Inquiry System - Search

This terminology is not specifically included in either alternate names list for myelodysplastic syndrome, NOS (9989/3) or refractory anemia with excess blasts (9983/3).

Example: Bone Marrow Biopsy, Final Diagnosis: Consistent with involvement by myelodysplastic syndrome with excess blasts-2 (MDS EB-2).

There is a discrepancy in regional lymph nodes for lung between SEER and AJCC. Supraclavicular lymph nodes/cervical lymph nodes are distant for SEER but regional for AJCC. For SEER states, when there is an FNA or biopsy of a supraclavicular lymph node performed and it is positive for a lung primary and no other lymph nodes are examined, do you code 95 in Regional Nodes Positive/Regional Nodes Examined and code "1" for Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery or do you not count the FNA/biopsy of the supraclavicular lymph node since it is distant?

I recently did a presentation on coding the data item Race. In my presentation I discussed understanding geography help code race in some circumstances. One of the slides demonstrates how large Polynesia is and what Pacific islands are found in Polynesia, such as, Tahiti, Samoa, and even Hawaii, all of which have their own codes. Someone in the audience asked "How do you code New Zealand? Upon some research, New Zealand is not listed in Appendix D of the SEER coding manual. We could code them 01-White. But research shows there is a very large indigenous population. Technically, New Zealand is located within the boundaries of Polynesia - Code 25 (Polynesian).

Pathology--Final description: Uterus, cervix, bilateral fallopian tubes and ovaries, total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy: Endometrial adenocarcinoma, endometrioid type, well differentiated, FIGO 1/3. Myometrial invasion: focal myometrial invasion (30% of myometrium) Tumor size: 2 x2 cm Tumor site: Fundus, exophytic/polypoid lesion Gross description: The 3.0 cm in length by 2.5 cm in diameter triangular endometrium is tan-red and smooth with a 2.0 x 2.0 cm tan-pink, exophytic fundic mass which extends on to both anterior and posterior aspects, 4.1 cm from the os.

At the central registry, we have accessioned this scenario as three primaries per Multiple Primaries/Histology (MP/H) Rule M10 (diagnosed more than 1 year apart), as the patient was stated to be disease free between each occurrence. However, the diagnosing/treating facility is not reporting these cases due to clinical statements of recurrent disease.

This is an example of a case type identified on casefinding audits conducted by our central registry in which we have learned SEER's expectation of MP/H rule application does not match hospital reporting. Can the 2018 version of the MP/H rules more clearly address how this type of clinically recurrent (multiple times) case should be handled?

Per Rule M8, this is a single primary as there are multiple urothelial tumors as outlined in Table 1 (papillary urothelial carcinoma [8130] and sarcomatoid urothelial carcinoma [8122]) simultaneously present in multiple urinary organs (bladder, ureter and renal pelvis). As Rule M8 indicates these are a single primary, despite the histologies differing at the third digit (8130 vs 8122), then Rule H14 (Code the histology of the most invasive tumor) seems to be the most applicable histology rule. Following Rule H14 (in the Text version of the MP/H Rules), the histology would be coded as 8122 (sarcomatoid urothelial carcinoma) since the renal pelvis tumor was the most invasive tumor present.

However, in both the Matrix and Flowchart versions of the MP/H Rules, Rule H14 contains a note (missing from the Text version) that states that this rule should only be used when the first three numbers of the histology codes are identical (This is a single primary). Rule M8 clearly tells us these are a single primary, despite the differences at the third digit of the histology. Further defaulting to Rule H15 (Code the numerically higher histology code) in this case would ignore the histology of the tumor with the worse prognosis (the most invasive tumor). Was this note included in the Matrix and Flowchart versions in error?

The FORDS Manual (pg. 22) states: The first course of treatment includes all methods of treatment recorded in the treatment plan and administered to the patient before disease progression or recurrence. The instructions in the FORDS Manual and clarification from multiple CAnswer Forum posts indicates the planned first course treatment stops following disease progression, even when the first course treatment plan is not altered or changed.

SEER, on the other hand, instructs registrars to do the opposite. The SEER Manual instructs registrars to code all completed treatment given as part of the initial first course treatment plan, even after disease progression, provided the treatment plan is not changed or altered. (See 2016 SEER Manual, Section VII First Course of Therapy, Treatment Timing, Rule 1 and Example 1.)

For consistency in data collection, shouldnt the standard setters use the same guidelines to define first course treatment? Given that the majority of cases are reported to SEER by registrars in CoC facilities, who may not be abstracting treatment modalities that occur after progression, the SEER expectation is likely not able to be performed consistently. Wont this difference in standard setter data collection expectations negatively impact the treatment data reflected on our files?

Partial nephrectomy showed carcinoma, histologic type: succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma. This is not a term in the ICD-O, and is not a histology covered in the Kidney MPH rules. However, a recent web search indicates this is a specific type of RCC that was added to the 2016 WHO classification of RCC (per abstract: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27179267) and makes up 0.05-0.2% of RCC cases (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4229399/).

A dementia patient has been managed for a persistent right cheek skin lesion that has been slow growing for about 5 years. It was biopsied in 12/23/15 revealing a Breslow 0.12 mm lentigo maligna melanoma by an outside provider. A larger resection of the lesion on 2/3/16 demonstrated a Breslow 0.30 mm lentigo maligna melanoma with melanoma in situ present at the margins per the available pathology report. There was no statement in the record that any additional treatment was planned or necessary.

Patient healed well from the 2/3/16 procedure but developed a recurrent lesion in May that was biopsied on 5/10/16 by the same outside provider which again reveal lentigo maligna melanoma. 7/5/16 Reexcision at the current facility revealed a Breslow 6.1 mm lentigo maligna melanoma, Clarks level V. This was a cutaneous tumor per the path report and not a subcutaneous nodule. Clinically, the MD called this a , but there was no slide comparison to the previous melanoma.

In auditing files for expected (but not received) abstracts due from facilities, we've observed these types of cases not being consistently reported as multiple primaries.