SEER Inquiry System - Search

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?

There is an ICD-O histology code for follicular carcinoma, minimally invasive (8335/3) as well as follicular carcinoma, oxyphilic cell (8290/3). Per SINQ 20150045, the term oncocytic is synonymous with oxyphilic in this context.

The Multiple Primaries/Histology General Instructions and histology rules do not include the term “variant” as a term that can be used to code a further histologic subtype. The term “variant” can be used for the Other Sites (non-updated STR sites) when the ICD-O-3.2 (or ICD-O-3 for older cases) provides the term “variant” in the histology name.

The SEER Manual states that the Other Therapy data item identifies treatments given that cannot be classified as surgery, radiation, systemic therapy, or ancillary treatment; and the instructions for code 2, Other-Experimental, say to assign this for any experimental or newly developed treatment, such as a clinical trial, that differs greatly from proven types of cancer therapy.  Does this mean that only unclassifiable treatments should be coded in Other Therapy, even if given as part of a clinical trial? 

For example, if a patient is given a drug as part of a trial that is categorized in SEER*Rx as immunotherapy, should it be assigned both Immunotherapy (NAACCR #1410) code 1 and Other Therapy code 2, or only coded in Immunotherapy since it is classified as such?  How should a clinical trial drug be coded if it has a treatment classification in SEER*Rx, but the type of cancer being treated is not listed under the Primary Site or Remarks sections as being FDA approved?  A real case scenario is atezolizumab given for colon cancer as part of a trial; this drug's category is Immunotherapy in SEER*Rx but colon is not listed under Primary Sites or in the Remarks detailing FDA approvals.

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?

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.

Examples:

Bladder TURB:  Invasive high grade urothelial carcinoma with poorly differentiated (40%), lipoid (5%), and sarcomatoid (55%) components.

Bladder tumor base TURB:  Invasive high grade urothelial carcinoma with poorly differentiated (65%) and sarcomatoid (30%) components.

The Urinary Sites Solid Tumor Rules, histology coding rules, say to code the most specific histology or subtype/variant, regardless of whether it is described as majority, minority, or component.  Poorly differentiated (8020) and sarcomatoid (8122) are both urothelial subtypes, but there is no rule to instruct how to code a tumor/tumors with multiple urothelial subtypes.

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.

The left thyroid lobectomy/isthmusectomy returned a diagnosis of sclerosing mucoepidermoid carcinoma with eosinophina, 6.5 cm, replacing nearly the entire left lobe of the thyroid.

The patient has a completion thyroidectomy of the right lobe and returned the diagnosis of papillary thyroid carcinoma, 0.5 mm, in maximum dimension.

The endocrinologist describes it as "co-exsisting" and states the tumor is iodine non-avid.