SEER Inquiry System - Search

The UroVysion website says that standard procedures, e.g., cytology, cystoscopy, take precedence over the UroVysion test. The Quest Diagnostics website says that "A positive result is consistent with a diagnosis of bladder cancer or bladder cancer recurrence, either in the bladder or in another site within the urinary system. A negative result is suggestive of the absence of bladder cancer but does not rule it out." Would we pick up the case if the UroVysion test was positive but the standard procedures were negative or non-diagnostic?

Patient had an appendectomy revealing a low grade mucinous appendiceal neoplasm (LAMN) with diffuse peritoneal dissemination. Patient now with cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), which revealed metastatic disease in the abdomen, omentum, pelvic peritoneum, peri-cecal, and gallbladder.

This patient underwent a "partial decortication" per the operative report. While the operative report does not specifically note that this was performed with a partial pleurectomy, it appears the patient had a partial pleurectomy because the largest specimen removed was a "pleural peel" specimen, which included the parietal and visceral pleural surfaces with a small amount of underlying lung tissue. The operative report notes the patient had involvement of both the lung and chest wall. A total resection was not possible due to the extent of the tumor. However, this patient does appear to have undergone at least a partial resection of the pleura/tumor burden. The patient did not simply undergo a pleurodesis to free adhesions. Per the NCI's PDQ, pleurectomy and decortication are performed together. Because the operative report and pathology report only called this procedure a "partial decortication" without specifically mentioning a pleurectomy, would this be coded as a tumor excision (surgery code 20)? Or should we assume the procedure is best coded as a partial pleurectomy and decortication and use code 30 (simple/partial resection)?

The patient was diagnosed with a carcinoid tumor of the small intestine. The pre-surgical work-up also identified a lung nodule that showed no octreotide uptake, but was indeterminate on biopsy. The imaging differential diagnosis included carcinoid, hamartoma, or a non-calcified granuloma. The patient underwent a resection of the primary small bowel tumor, and the physician noted the lung nodule was of unclear diagnosis. The physician stated a solitary lung metastasis would be atypical, but that lung metastatic involvement could not be ruled out. The physician recommended resection of the lung nodule to ensure that the patient was disease free. The lung wedge resection proved a pulmonary hamartoma.

The rules for coding Surgical Procedure of Other Site are not entirely clear. The definitions for First Course of Therapy in the SEER Manual do state that treatment includes, "Procedures that destroy or modify primary (primary site) or secondary (metastatic) cancer tissue." This would seem to exclude the lung resection as it did not destroy, modify or remove metastatic cancer tissue. However, the instructions for coding Surgical Procedure of Other Site do not address removal of distant sites that are not incidental. The lung resection was not incidental; the physician recommended it to ensure the lung was not involved, but it also disproved metastatic involvement. Should the Surgical Procedure of Other Site field be coded 0 (none) or 4 (non-primary surgical procedure to distant site) in this case?

There are multiple SEER Notes in the Breast Surgery Codes of Appendix C instructing us to code tissue expanders as reconstruction but none address the type of reconstruction to be coded.

1. Is a tissue expander always equivalent to Implant reconstruction?

2. Is AlloDerm always equivalent to Tissue reconstruction?

3. Is the combination of AlloDerm and tissue expander always equivalent to Combined (tissue and implant) reconstruction?

Examples

8/xx/13 TURBT with path specimen (27): Papillary Urothelial Carcinoma, HG    9/xx/13 Bladder fulgeration w/o path specimen (12)

5/xx/14 Segmental Mastectomy(24): Ductal carcinoma with <1mm marg    6/xx/14 Breast Re-excision (23): Residual ductal carcinoma 1.5mm, marg neg

According to College of American Pathologists (CAP), lobular neoplasia is also known as lobular carcinoma in situ. In a previous SEER question 20041089, it was stated that they were not the same and should not be reported unless it was a Grade 3. I assume this has changed and we are to report lobular neoplasia as lobular carcinoma in situ, is this correct?

Pathology report states: the individual nodules of trichoblastic cells resemble those seen in trichoblastoma, but the lesion is very poorly circumscribed with an infiltrative border that extends into the subcutis. the lesion may behave in a locally aggressive fashion, and should be completely removed. High grade trichoblastic carcinomas can metastasize.