SEER Inquiry System - Search

1) In the SEER Manual's code definitions for Neoadjuvant Therapy - Treatment Effect, some sites specify the percentage of viable tumor. Pathology reports often list this along with the percentage of necrosis (e.g., 10% necrosis and 90% viable tumor). If only the percent necrosis is stated, is it acceptable to infer the percent viable tumor? For example, pathology report states only "treatment effect: present, necrosis extent: 30%" - could we then deduce that the percent viable tumor in this case would be 70%?

2) Can statements of Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) Class be used?  For example, pathology report states Treatment Effect: Residual Cancer Burden Class II, with no further description of partial vs. complete response. It appears that RCB Class II is a "moderate burden" of residual tumor after neoadjuvant therapy; could this be interpreted as a partial response in the Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect code definitions?

In this case, the surgeon ruptured the ovarian tumor to drain it prior to removal causing the surgical spill. Regional lymph nodes are negative and there is no metastasis. The capsule was then noted as ruptured on pathology.

Does it matter if the surgeon was the one who ruptured the capsule? Would the stage change if the surgeon intentionally ruptured the capsule to drain the tumor intraoperatively causing some surgical spill? The scenarios of an intentional and not intentional rupture are not specified in SEER Summary Stage 2018.

SINQ 20000245 states that high grade or severe dysplasia in not synonymous with in situ disease. However, per page 109 in the 7th edition of AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, high grade dysplasia is the only term listed under Tis. A note on that page explains that "high-grade dysplasia includes all noninvasive neoplastic epithelia that was formerly called carcinoma in situ, a diagnosis that is no longer used for columnar mucosae anywhere in the gastrointestinal tract."

There has been considerable pressure from registrars at larger reporting facilities to re-address this issue. The pathologists at these facilities state that they are correctly documenting the presence of in situ disease when they use the term high grade dysplasia for gastrointestinal tract tumors. In their opinion, it is not necessary to add the term in situ in parentheses following the use of the term high grade dysplasia to clarify the behavior of these lesions in their pathology reports. If the term "carcinoma in situ" is no longer being used by many pathologists for sites in the gastrointestinal tract, won't this lead to underreporting of in situ disease for these sites unless the reportability guidelines are changed?

CT a/p read by radiologist shows: "Bosniak 4 cystic lesion of right kidney." Follow-up MRI a month later reads "right kidney cystic lesion with enhancing mural nodule concerning for cystic renal cell carcinoma (RCC)." Urologist consult used the same wording of "Bosniak 4 cystic lesion" and "concerning for renal cell carcinoma." Treatment discussed but due to patient health status recommended repeat imaging. Repeat CT few months later reads: "cystic right renal lesion with enhancing nodule similar to most recent prior and suspicious for cystic RCC."

Though "suspicious for cystic RCC" per latest imaging is reportable, Bosniak 4 is "clearly malignancy, ~100% malignant" by definition, so is the case actually reportable with the first CT a/p date as date of diagnosis?

There was a 3.5 cm invasive adenocarcinoma tumor in the pancreatic head. There were four separate, sized pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors measuring 0.9, 0.7, 0.5 and 0.2 cm in the pancreatic body. There are multiple tumors with distinctly different histologies. However, Table 11 (Pancreas Histologies) does not include any entries for neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas (e.g., pancreatic NET, WHO grade 1, histology 8240). While it would seem Rule M19 should apply as they’re distinctly different histologies, because PanNETs are not included in Table 11, it is not clear which M Rule applies to these multiple tumors.

If Rule M19 does not apply, we are left with Rule M21 (Abstract a single primary when there are multiple tumors that do not meet any of the above criteria). Are these separate tumors with distinctly different histologies really a single primary? Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors are not an uncommon histology, is there a reason these were not included in Table 11?

SKIN, RIGHT FOOT, EXCISION: CHRONIC SCARIFICATION WITH RESIDUAL ATYPICAL MELANOCYTES IN THE DERMIS IDENTIFIED, BUT COMPLETELY EXCISED.

Comment: The prior outside biopsy report indicates that the lesion was a melanocytic tumor of uncertain malignant potential (minimal deviation melanoma) measuring at least 2.5 mm in depth. There was apparently no in situ component. Special stains performed here are similar, with positive reactivity for Melan A and S-100. The cells are atypical, but there are reactive changes, making it impossible to accurately assess the true nature of the lesion in this biopsy. If this is a minimal deviation melanoma, it would be classified as a T3 (T3a since there is no description in the outside report of ulceration) lesion. The atypical melanocytes extend to a depth of 1.1 mm in this 2 mm deep biopsy, but are completely excised, both at the deep margin and at all of the peripheral margins (closest margin is superior, with clearance of 7 mm).

PATH FROM INITIAL BIOPSY: Diagnosis: Rt dorsal foot, shave biopsy: Melanocytic tumor of uncertain malignant potential (see comment). Tumor depth at least 2.5mm Deep margin involved. Comment: As a primary lesion, I would favor that this represents a melanocytic tumor with indeterminate biologic potential also known as minimal deviation melanoma. The lesion does extend to the deep margin and wider excision is recommended.