SEER Inquiry System - Search

A conjunctival biopsy final diagnosis is squamous mucosa with moderate to high grade dysplasia. The diagnosis comment states that immunostains were performed and confirm squamous histology. This seems to imply a high grade squamous dysplasia, rather than a non-reportable high grade dysplasia.  Does this case meet the criteria for reportable high grade squamous dysplasia?

In the WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th edition, for the uterine cervix squamous intraepithelial lesions, there is related terminology for high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion HSIL (CIN3) 8077/2 and it is severe squamous dysplasia; squamous cell in situ. However, in the online WHO Classification of Digestive System Tumors, 5th edition, there is no related terminology for esophageal high-grade squamous dysplasia, 8077/2. Can you collect cases of severe dysplasia the same as cases of high grade dysplasia? 

For example:

-ultrasound of the right eye: consistent with a nevoma/melanoma; we could not find any indication that nevoma is a reportable term

-bladder biopsy pathology report:  severe urothelial dysplasia/carcinoma in situ (CIS)

As a central registry, we receive some limited information cases like this where there is no record of treatment or possibility to follow-back to physicians for clarification, so we want to make sure we are reporting them correctly.

Example:  Patient scheduled for left nephrectomy on 3/10/20 due to left renal papillary renal cell carcinoma diagnosed on 2/11/20 via needle core biopsy. Abstract indicated surgery was cancelled due to the pandemic. Abstract also indicated the surgery was not rescheduled.

In the old 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology rules, Lung Equivalent Terms and Definitions section, oat cell carcinoma (8042) was listed as one of the obsolete terms that was no longer recognized for small cell carcinoma.  That note is not in the current 2018 Solid Tumor Manual lung chapter, and ICDO-3.2 lists oat cell carcinoma as the preferred term for code 8042/3.  Would rule H4, Note 2 apply -- only one histology present, if not listed in Table 3 use ICD-O and all updates, to code oat cell carcinoma as 8042/3?

Lutathera is a radioconjugate consisting of the tyrosine-containing somatostatin analog Tyr3-octreotate (TATE) conjugated with the bifunctional, macrocyclic chelating agent tetra-azacyclododecanetetra-acetic acid (DOTA) and radiolabeled with the beta-emitting radioisotope lutetium Lu 177 with potential antineoplastic activities.

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?

A common scenario is a patient has a positive CT of the abdomen/pelvis for liver mass only. Biopsy of the liver mass is positive for cholangiocarcinoma. The physician is also calling the liver tumor the primary site with histology of cholangiocarcinoma. There is no evidence of intrahepatic bile duct (C221) or gallbladder (C240) involvement which are sites specific to this histology. The hematology/oncology consult stages this as Stage IIIA, T3N0M0 intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.  Can we code cholangiocarcinoma with site code C220 (liver) or should we assume that C221 (intrahepatic bile ducts) would be a better code to reflect this histology?  

There is an ICD-O histology code for papillary carcinoma, columnar cell (8344/3) as well as papillary carcinoma, encapsulated (8343/3). Per Rule H13, the terms “with features of” may be used to identify a subtype.

Considering these two subtypes, and knowing there is no specific histology code for this combination, is the first rule that applies H17 (code the numerically higher histology code)?