SEER Inquiry System - Search

A January 2022 endometrium biopsy and curettage both show final diagnosis of “mild cytologic atypia and glandular crowding, at most endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia.”  Any subsequent surgery path is unlikely to provide clarification.

The patient underwent a resection of the transitional meningioma in 2012, but residual tumor was left behind. The patient was on surveillance until imaging showed growth of the residual tumor. The resection in 2022 proved atypical meningioma.

Rule M2, the first rule that applies, indicates this situation represents a single primary (a single tumor). However, Rule M4 states the transformation from a benign meningioma to a borderline meningioma would only be a single primary if the meningioma was a NOS.

This patient has microscopic confirmation of a meningioma showing different subtypes/variants (listed in Column 3, Table 6). Should this be accessioned as multiple primaries based on the transformation and distinctly different histologies?

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)?

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?

Acinar predominant adenocarcinoma measures at least 12 mm and involves wedge biopsy margins, while the lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma measures 11 mm and does not involve the margins of that separate specimen. Pathologist also notes, “CT findings of diffuse coarse reticular nodular opacity, these findings may represent pneumonic type adenocarcinoma/diffuse pulmonary involvement or intrapulmonary metastasis.  Both of these scenarios have the corresponding stages of pT4 (if thought to be ipsilateral) or M1a (if thought to also involve the contralateral lobe).”

Patient declined any further treatment and transitioned to hospice before expiring less than 1 month after wedge biopsies.

It is unclear if Rule M6 would apply to these two specimens with different subtypes since this scenario is not specifically addressed in the M rule definitions.

11/16/20: Patient diagnosed with endometrial cancer on by MRI of the pelvis; 11.5 cm uterine mass consistent with cancer with no lymphadenopathy.

1/6/21: Patient had a total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection. Operative report stated patient had mildly enlarged bilateral pelvic nodes.

Path report: Endometrioid adenocarcinoma with invasion of the serosa. Five bilateral pelvic nodes were sampled and negative. Originally, staging had patient as node negative.

1/22/21: Patient had post op imaging done that showed metastatic retroperitoneal, aortocaval, and possibly left iliac lymph nodes. Physician changed staging to include the lymph node involvement.

Patient was diagnosed on biopsy with lentigo maligna melanoma of the nasal dorsum. The only available documentation of the subsequent surgery is a single pathology report with the nasal dorsum “staged excision (debulking specimen)” and four additional “staged excision” specimens of the same site.

Is it safe to assume this is a Mohs surgery? Would it be safe to assume staged excisions of sites other than skin of face, are also Mohs surgery?