SEER Inquiry System - Search

There is an ICD-O histology code for papillary carcinoma, tall cell (8344/3) as well as papillary carcinoma, oxyphilic cell (8342/3). Per SINQ 20150045, the term oncocytic is synonymous with oxyphilic in this context.

The term “variant” can be used for the Other Sites (non-updated STR sites) primaries when the ICD-O-3.2 (or ICD-O-3 for older cases) includes the term “variant” in the histology name. The MPH General Instructions did not include the term “variant” as a term that can be used to code histology.

Patient has a remote history of a right thalamic mass status-post two resections; reported as malignant oligodendroglioma (pathology not received) and chemo/radiation therapy, who recently presented with persistent headaches. Imaging revealed a 3.4 cm heterogeneous lobulated right thalamic mass with coarse calcifications and a probable cystic component.

Pathologist indicates the histologic and immunophenotypic features of this neoplasm are that of relatively circumscribed neuroepithelial tumor without high grade features (mitotic activity, microvascular proliferation, necrosis). Molecularly this neoplasm is characterized by a PATZ1-EWSR1 fusion, which has recently been proposed to be a distinct neuroepithelial tumor entity with a broad histological spectrum.

2016 Total thyroidectomy, Multifocal

-Dominant Tumor:  Right Lobe, Papillary thyroid carcinoma (8260/3)

-Tumors two through five:  Three tumors Papillary thyroid carcinoma (8260/3), and one tumor Papillary thyroid carcinoma, follicular variant (8340/3)

-An additional tumor: Non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (8343/2)

Patient has a diagnosis of myeloid sarcoma presenting as multiple erythematous papules and nodules on back, chest, right arm & shoulder. Oncologist did not mention any evidence or suspicion of an associated AML diagnosis.

HemeRetic schema EOD Primary Tumor Note 1 states that myeloid sarcoma can be coded as localized (code 100) or systemic (code 700). It is not clear what would qualify as systemic disease for myeloid sarcoma.

The pathology report states this is a rare entity described in case reports and not incorporated into the WHO classification of tumors. A subsequent endocrinology note stated “papillary tumor, benign by path; tumor was not an adenoma; based on one Mayo study, the recurrence risk is low.”

Patient had a partial nephrectomy with final diagnosis of papillary renal neoplasm with reverse polarity.  Diagnosis comment states: Papillary renal neoplasm with reverse polarity is currently considered to be a histologic variant of papillary renal cell carcinoma; however, recent studies suggest that it has a very indolent clinical behavior.

In the September 2021 Urinary Sites Solid Tumor Rules update, the term configuration was removed from the “DO NOT CODE histology when described as” list. However, it was not added as a term that can be used to code the more specific histology for urinary tumors.

Can configuration be used to code the more specific histology 8130 (papillary urothelial carcinoma) when the diagnosis is urothelial carcinoma, tumor configuration: papillary?

Patient has a history of AIN I/low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) dating back to at least 2015, was diagnosed with AIN II-III in 12/2019, and then diagnosed again with AIN II-III in 08/2021. There is no indication of treatment or a disease-free interval for this patient.

SINQ 20210015, while not an exact match to this case, implies there is no clear disease-free interval for these AIN diagnoses, so it is the same non-reportable neoplasm diagnosed prior to reportability (12/2019). However, there was a diagnosis of a reportable neoplasm in 2021, so it also seems possible this would be accessioned as a reportable tumor based on a diagnosis of reportable tumor diagnosis in 2021.

With the reportability changes for these intraepithelial neoplasia II/II-III tumors, these situations will arise more frequently.

Is a physician’s statement of progressive disease adequate to determine disease progression in coding first vs. second course treatment? Can an increase in tumor burden (i.e., a change in overall stage) be used by the registrar to determine disease progression?

Often, determining disease progression is difficult as there are no guidelines in the SEER Manual related to this topic. It seems a physician’s statement of progressive disease should always be accepted. However, that statement is not always available. While it seems an increase in tumor size alone would not be “progressive disease” as tumors will continue to grow, can registrars use an increase in tumor burden to make this determination?

The instructions for coding first vs. second course treatment are clear when a treatment plan is changed, but determining whether there has been disease progression, recurrence, or treatment failure can be difficult without a physician’s assessment.

For example, a patient was diagnosed with a newly diagnosed resectable pancreatic cancer; the documented treatment plan was for upfront chemotherapy, followed by repeat staging, followed by pancreatectomy. The patient completed 3 cycles of FOLFIRINOX, but the physician noted that the CT scan shows progressive disease, and the plan was to start a new treatment regimen with Abraxane, Gemzar, and stereotactic body radiation (SBRT) (Cyberknife). The patient completed the additional chemotherapy, radiation, and proceeded to the initially planned surgery. The pathologist staged this as yp disease, but the surgery appears to be second course treatment, and we would not code the surgery, or collect the staging (yp staging) since the physician stated this was progressive disease. The classification as yp staging can be misleading, since the resection is technically after neoadjuvant treatment, but is not collected per our guidelines. In this case, is it correct to code first course treatment as FOLFIRINOX only?