System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 10/31/2024 10:21 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20051136 Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: How is the surgery field coded when an excisional biopsy that is originally stated to be negative is later determined to be positive on ROS and a mastectomy with negative findings is performed 2 years later? See Discussion.

Hospital 'A' performed a breast biopsy and found only atypia. Two years later Hospital 'B' re-read the first biopsy as multifocal ductal carcinoma in situ, cribriform type. A mastectomy at Hospital 'B' followed and all specimens from this were negative.

Do we report the procedure at Hospital 'A' an excisional biopsy, despite the negative findings at the time?

For hospital A, follow the instructions in the 2004 SEER Manual on page 5, #4. For hospital B, the case is not reportable.

The diagnosis date is the date of first excision. Code the breast excision from Hospital A as surgery, first course treatment. The mastectomy was not part of first course treatment.

 2005
20110138

First course treatment--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is first course of treatment when a patient received multiple different chemotherapy regimens before a complete remission for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma was achieved?

The patient was initially treated with involved field radiation and R-CHOP. The patient still had residual disease and the treatment was changed to RICE. Following RICE, there was still residual disease and the patient underwent another unspecified chemotherapy treatment. The patient was then transferred to a transplant center for pre-transplant chemotherapy and a bone marrow transplant. The patient achieved a complete response after transplant.

Should the R-CHOP and radiation be the first course treatment in a case like this, or would first course treatment include all chemotherapy and the transplant?

For hard-to-treat diseases such as DLBCL, the treatment plan outlined prior to treatment beginning may indicate, "The first course of treatment will be radiation and R-CHOP. If the R-CHOP does not achieve remission, we will use RICE." In other words, the first course treatment plan includes a second round of chemotherapy if the patient has not achieved a complete response after the R-CHOP and radiation. If the treatment plan was documented like this for the patient, the first course treatment includes R-CHOP, involved field radiation and RICE.

However, if there is no initial treatment plan in the medical record, all treatment provided after the date when "residual disease" or "failed to achieve remission" is documented in the medical record is either second or a subsequent course of therapy.

 2011
20240045

Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Prostate: Should cases be reported and abstracted based on ambiguous terminology, e.g., suspicious for prostate cancer, when the physician is not treating the case as malignant? See Discussion.

Please comment on these specific scenarios.

  1. A prostate biopsy is suspicious for adenocarcinoma, but the urologist is not considering this malignant, nor is the urologist treating for malignancy, but there is no clear statement from the physician that this is not reportable.  Should this case be abstracted?
  2. A prostate biopsy is suspicious for adenocarcinoma, and there is a statement by the physician that this is not yet malignant. Should this case be abstracted?
  3. Prostate MRI with PIRADS 4 or 5; however, the treating urologist does not call this malignant and is not treating patient for prostate cancer.  [Example: 2024 Prostate MRI - PI-RADS 4. Follow up with Urologist states patient to repeat Prostate MRI in 1 year and continue with yearly PSA levels and there is no mention of prostate cancer other than the PI-RADS score]. Should this case be abstracted?

For each of your scenarios, the medical record information indicates that the case is not reportable based on physician opinion. Do not abstract these cases.

Remember that the ambiguous terms list is to be used as a last resort. The ideal way to approach abstracting situations when the medical record is not clear is to follow up with the physician. If the physician is not available, the medical record, and any other pertinent reports (e.g., pathology, etc.) should be read closely for the required information. See page 19 in the SEER Manual, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2024/SPCSM_2024_MainDoc.pdf

 2024
20170078

Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery--Lung: How do you code Regional Nodes Positive, Regional Nodes Examined, and Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery when a fine needle aspirate (FNA) or biopsy of supraclavicular lymph nodes is positive for a lung cancer primary? Supraclavicular lymph nodes are distant in SEER Summary Stage and regional by AJCC. See Discussion.

There is a discrepancy in regional lymph nodes for lung between SEER and AJCC. Supraclavicular lymph nodes/cervical lymph nodes are distant for SEER but regional for AJCC. For SEER states, when there is an FNA or biopsy of a supraclavicular lymph node performed and it is positive for a lung primary and no other lymph nodes are examined, do you code 95 in Regional Nodes Positive/Regional Nodes Examined and code "1" for Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery or do you not count the FNA/biopsy of the supraclavicular lymph node since it is distant?

For cases diagnosed through 2017, use the Collaborative Staging (CS) system to determine regional versus distant lymph nodes. Supraclavicular lymph nodes are regional for lung in CS.

Please note that Summary Stage is not the same as EOD, CS, or AJCC staging. Registrars should not use Summary Stage definitions for anything other than directly assigning the Summary Stage field.

 2017
20051034 Date Therapy Initiated/Reason no treatment--Lymphoma: Is the date of the lymph node biopsy used as the date of treatment if the lymph node biopsy is the first treatment or the only treatment performed? Is the reason for no surgery coded to 0 [Surgery of the primary site was performed]?

For cases diagnosed prior to January 1, 2008, enter the date of the lymph node biopsy (excisional biopsy or biopsy NOS) as the Date Therapy Initiated for a lymphoma when the biopsy is the first or only therapy performed.

Code Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site as 0 [Surgery of the primary site was performed] and the biopsy of a lymph node is coded to 25 in Surgery to Primary Site.

Do not code a fine needle aspiration or core needle biopsy in Surgery of Primary Site.

 2005
20180106

First Course Treatment--Other Therapy: Please explain how to code this new therapy, peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) for rare neuroendocrine tumors. See Discussion.

According to this article, PRRT treatment lutetium Lu 177 dotatate was approved earlier this year by the United States Food and Drug Administration for adult use. PRRT is a nuclear medicine therapy that travels throughout the body looking for a certain receptor within neuroendocrine tumors. These include pancreatic and small neuroendocrine tumors in the gastrointestinal tract. Once absorbed into the tumor, the radioactive material starts to break down tumor cells, killing them. It is the first radioactive drug approved for the targeted treatment of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

(http://cinj.org/rutgers-cancer-institute-new-jersey-and-robert-wood-johnson-university-hospital-are-first-state ).

For cases diagnosed prior to 2023: Code Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy (PRRT) in the data item Other Therapy, code 1, Other.

See SINQ 20220042 and 20230005 for information pertaining to cases diagnosed in 2023 or later.

 2018
20130190

Reportability: Is a thymoma, type B3 malignant and, therefore, reportable? See Discussion.

Recent information received from a registrar/pathologist states the WHO classifies well-differentiated thymic carcinoma [8585/3] as a synonym for type B3 thymoma.

For cases diagnosed prior to 2021

Thymoma, type B3 [8585/1] is not reportable. Well-differentiated thymic carcinoma [8585/3] is reportable.

WHO lists well-differentiated thymic carcinoma as a synonym for type B3 thymoma, but indicates the behavior code differs as indicated above.

See the applicable SEER manual for cases diagnosed 2021 and later.

 2013
20110038

Reportability/Behavior: Is a "minimally invasive thymoma" a reportable malignancy if the pathology report does not specifically state it is malignant? See Discussion.

For example, are Types A, B1, B2 and B3 reportable if the pathology report does not state the tumor is a "Malignant Thymoma"?

For cases diagnosed prior to 2021

According to our expert pathologist consultant, code using the terms in the pathology report. Do not try to second guess the pathologist.

  1. Thymomas are /1 and not reportable unless the pathologist states "malignant". This includes A, AB, B1, B2, and B3. Any one of these types of tumors may exhibit invasion but do not code /3 based only on invasion.

  • Code thymoma as /3 if specifically designated "malignant" by the pathologist.

  • Thymic carcinoma and any of its subtypes are malignant, /3.

    		•  2011
    		20210005

    Reportability/Histology--Ovary: Is a 2020 ovary case reportable with the positive malignant findings in adnexal cystic fluid and peritoneal washing? See Discussion.

    11/24/20 Adnexal mass, cyst fluid: Positive for malignant cells. Clusters of inhibin-positive, CK7-negative cells, consistent with adult granulosa cell tumor cells. Groups of inhibin-negative, CK7-positive epithelial cells consistent with serous borderline tumor cells. Peritoneal washing: Positive for malignant cells. Small groups of inhibin-positive, CK7-negative cells, consistent with adult granulosa cell tumor cells.

    A. Left ovarian mass: Adult granulosa cell tumor (AGCT) of ovary (see note). pTNM Stage: pT1c3 pNX - Serous borderline tumor (SBT) of ovary (see note). pTNM Stage: pT1a pNX. Fallopian tube; unremarkable.

    B. Right ovary: - Serous cystadenofibroma of ovary. Fallopian tube; unremarkable.

    C. Left pelvic wall nodule: Fibro-calcified nodule, consistent with necrotic appendix epiploica.

    D. Uterus (hysterectomy): Uterine leiomyomas. Endosalpingiosis of uterine serosa and paracervical tissue. Atrophic endometrium.

    Note: The left ovarian mass is involved by a combined adult granulosa cell tumor and a serous borderline tumor. The AGCT mainly involves the thick-walled cystic area while the SBT the thin-walled cyst/s. The 2 neoplastic elements do, however, demonstrate areas of intimate and close intermingling. From the current literature, it appears that, based on FOXL2 mutation, the AGCT component of combined AGCT and ovarian epithelial tumors is either a true neoplastic processes or an AGCT- like proliferation morphologically indistinguishable from AGCT. To further evaluate the nature of the AGCT component, a FOXL2 analysis is in progress and an addendum will follow.

    For cases diagnosed prior to 2021, report adult granulosa cell tumor of ovary only when stated to be malignant or when metastases are indicated, as by the positive peritoneal washings for this 2020 case. Beginning in 2021, report all cases of adult granulosa cell tumor of ovary based on ICD-O-3.2.

    		 2021
    		20180002

    MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: Is a renal pelvis diagnosed 5/2016 a separate primary when the first invasive bladder was 12/2011? Per rule M7, the 5/2016 renal pelvis is more than 3 years later. Does Multiple Primary/Histology (MP/H) rule M7 refer back to the original diagnosis date or to the last occurrence? See Discussion.

    12/30/11 Bladder Biopsy: Diffuse carcinoma in situ of bladder, urothelial cancer at trigone (Stage T1)

    1/30/2012 Transurethral resection of the bladder was non-papillary, urothelial carcinoma, focal invasion of lamina propria, staged T1

    11/10/14, 9/28/15, 9/26/16, 10/19/17 all had positive bladder cytology of urothelial carcinoma

    5/16/16 Left renal pelvis aspirate: positive for malignant cells, urothelial carcinoma

    9/26/16 Left renal pelvis aspirate: positive for malignant cells, urothelial carcinoma

    10/18/16-11/7/16 Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) x3 administered into the renal collecting system via ureteral catheter

    For cases diagnosed prior to 2018

    This case is a single primary. This patient has not had a disease-free interval as demonstrated by the positive cytologies from 2014 through 2017. The MP/H rules cannot be applied in this case.

    To answer your question about the timing of rule M7, please see slide 6 in the Beyond the Basics MP/H advanced training, General Instructions, https://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/training_adv/SEER_MPH_Gen_Instruc_06152007.pdf

    		 2018