SEER Inquiry System - Search

Per the SEER*Rx Database, Lupron is coded as Other Therapy for breast cancer until such time that it receives FDA approval. However, SINQ 20021042 states Lupron should be coded as Hormone Therapy when given as cancer-directed therapy. These two sources contradict each other.

Information regarding hormone therapy for breast cancer in both the SEER*Rx Database and the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Topics website (http://www.cancer.gov/types/breast/breast-hormone-therapy-fact-sheet) seem to indicate that the SINQ answer is the correct choice. The NCI Cancer Topics website states that Lupron acts to block ovarian function and is an example of an ovarian suppression drug that has been approved by the FDA. The SEER*Rx Database Remarks section states that a combination of letrozole and leuprolide (Lupron) "is considered standard treatment for metastatic breast cancer and is sometimes used for treatment of early stage breast cancer." But the Remarks go on to state that Lupron should be coded as Other Therapy until it receives FDA approval.

It is unclear how to code Lupron for breast cancers when the NCI website indicates that it is standard treatment while the SEER*Rx Database states both that it is and that it is not standard treatment.

The UroVysion website says that standard procedures, e.g., cytology, cystoscopy, take precedence over the UroVysion test. The Quest Diagnostics website says that "A positive result is consistent with a diagnosis of bladder cancer or bladder cancer recurrence, either in the bladder or in another site within the urinary system. A negative result is suggestive of the absence of bladder cancer but does not rule it out." Would we pick up the case if the UroVysion test was positive but the standard procedures were negative or non-diagnostic?

According to College of American Pathologists (CAP), lobular neoplasia is also known as lobular carcinoma in situ. In a previous SEER question 20041089, it was stated that they were not the same and should not be reported unless it was a Grade 3. I assume this has changed and we are to report lobular neoplasia as lobular carcinoma in situ, is this correct?

This patient underwent a "partial decortication" per the operative report. While the operative report does not specifically note that this was performed with a partial pleurectomy, it appears the patient had a partial pleurectomy because the largest specimen removed was a "pleural peel" specimen, which included the parietal and visceral pleural surfaces with a small amount of underlying lung tissue. The operative report notes the patient had involvement of both the lung and chest wall. A total resection was not possible due to the extent of the tumor. However, this patient does appear to have undergone at least a partial resection of the pleura/tumor burden. The patient did not simply undergo a pleurodesis to free adhesions. Per the NCI's PDQ, pleurectomy and decortication are performed together. Because the operative report and pathology report only called this procedure a "partial decortication" without specifically mentioning a pleurectomy, would this be coded as a tumor excision (surgery code 20)? Or should we assume the procedure is best coded as a partial pleurectomy and decortication and use code 30 (simple/partial resection)?

The pathology report states "Right mediastinal mass: poorly differentiated non-small cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation." This is the only histologic confirmation of this lung primary that is collected.

There is a 1988 case that hit the SEER edits for other reasons but not because of that site/histo combination (C000 and 8090/3); however, there is no text.

Per a Dataminer query, there are 42 cases in the state database with C000-C009 and 8090.  On review, a few did have a mention of the word "upper lip/mucosa" in the PE text or OP findings (not path because a lot of these are removed in the MD office and we don't see the path report). Other times, there is no mention but the abstractor used the C00 codes instead of C44 so the cases get through.

SINQ #20031110 addresses this in relation to C000, Lip, NOS but we want to know if this answer meant you would never report a basal carcinoma lip case period (even if there is a mention of mucosa or any mention of mucosa in the path report). Are there any exceptions?

It seems if you would never report a basal lip carcinoma, then SEER would block those cases from being reported/submitted and the wording would be stronger in the SEER manual.

Right now the reportability only addresses if someone codes C44 but if someone decides to use C00 codes then it is allowed. Under Primary Site, there is even a listing under 12 for "absence of any additional information" and lists "Colored / lipstick portion of upper lip" as code C000.

4/10/13 Partial hepatectomy: well differentiated mucin producing adenoca involve right and left hepatic ducts, common hepatic duct & common bile duct. Invasion beyond wall of bile duct. CT Scan after 1st surgery shows residual neoplasm cannot be excluded

7/31/13 Left lateral segmentectomy: residual well differentiated cholangiiocarcinoma involving connective tissue surrounding major bile ducts. Per medical director, histolgically code to cholangiocarcinoma.

Primary site: Extra hepatic bile duct. Chemo (5FU, Leucovorin, Oxaliplatin) was started 5/1.

The note explains: The International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD) in 2004 revised its classification of VIN by eliminating VIN 1 and combining VIN 2 and VIN 3 into a single category (see table below). Classification of VIN (usual type) ISSVD [International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease]1986 classification 2004 classification VIN 1 VIN2 VIN3 VIN Note: VIN 2 and VIN 3 combined into single [non-graded] category, VIN Reference: Scurry J and Wilkinson EJ.  Review of terminology of precursors of vulvar squamous cell carcinoma. Journal of lower genital tract disease, 2006; 10(3):  161-169