SEER Inquiry System - Search

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.”

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?

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.

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.

Previous SINQ 20091100 has a similar scenario and the instruction was to code as lentigo maligna (8742/2); however, it does not appear to be applicable to cases diagnosed after 2020.

The WHO Blue Book does not list melanoma, lentiginous type or lentiginous melanoma in situ as an alternate term for lentigo maligna and neither do the STR or the ICD-O-3.2.

Patient has a diagnosis of invasive carcinoma of the right breast from a core biopsy on 04/2023.

Subsequent bilateral mastectomy and sentinel node biopsy proves one positive sentinel node and one negative intramammary node.

One month later there is a completion axillary node dissection with 15 nodes negative for malignancy.

Per previous SINQ 20190074, the initial mastectomy and sentinel node excision with intramammary node removal should be coded as Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery 6. It is unclear how the resulting axillary dissection should be recorded in Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery. There is no code for sentinel node biopsy and 3, 4, or 5 at same time (code 6) PLUS an additional subsequent axillary dissection.

Please provide coding instructions for Sentinel Lymph Nodes Positive, Sentinel Lymph Nodes Examined, and Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery in this scenario.

2021-Right pleural fluid:  Negative for carcinoma.

5/18/2021: Right iliac crest bone marrow core biopsy, aspirate smear, clot section and peripheral blood smear:  Hypercellular bone marrow, morphological findings are suspicious for a myeloproliferative neoplasm. Flow Cytometry: Slight immunophenotypic abnormalities of the myeloid cells. No abnormal B cell, T cell, or NK cell populations identified. Normal female karyotype. KARYOTYPE: 46,XX[20]. Negative for deletion of 13q14.3 (D13S319) by FISH. Negative for deletion of 13q34 (LAMP1) by FISH. Negative for hyperdiploidy involving chromosome 9 by FISH. Negative for t(9;22)(q34;q11.2) by FISH. Negative for deletion of the EGR1 gene on 5q31 by FISH. Negative for monosomy 5 by FISH. Negative for deletion of 7q31 by FISH. Negative for monosomy 7 by FISH. Negative for deletion of 20q12 by FISH. Negative for trisomy of chromosome 8 by FISH.

6/4/21-Left adrenal; biopsy: poorly-differentiated malignant neoplasm with extensive necrosis. Immunohistochemical stains show the neoplastic cells to be negative for CK7, TTF-1 and p63. Negative CK7 and TTF-1 would argue against a lung primary. Correlation with clinical and radiological findings is advised.

We are unable to contact the provider.

Adenocarcinoma is a glandular tumor and the endocervix is generally the origin of glandular tissue for the cervix. However, if the only available information is pathology proving a single tumor overlapping the endocervix and exocervix, can we code the site to C530 instead of C538?

Applying the current primary site coding instructions, primary site would be coded as C538 because there is no specific statement of the tumor origin; the primary site coding instructions state the tumor is coded to an overlapping site in the absence of a specific statement of origin and there is no existing SINQ confirming the site can be assumed to be the endocervix based on the histology.

Patient had a hemithyroidectomy with the final diagnosis above. There does not appear to be an Other Sites H rule or table that addresses this combination of histologies for thyroid primaries.