SEER Inquiry System - Search

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?

Is a case reportable if the final diagnosis on an initial pathology report states a non-reportable term (e.g., evolving melanoma, early/evolving melanoma or melanocytic nevus) and followed by a subsequent re-excision pathology report stating there is "No residual melanoma"? There is no mention in the clinical history on the subsequent pathology report that the diagnosis was thought to be melanoma following the first procedure. The first mention of the reportable term was in the final diagnosis of the subsequent pathology report that stated "no residual melanoma."

Is Rule H8 a duplicate of Rule H7? Rule H7 instructs one to use Table 2 when there are multiple histologies and the combination is listed in Table 2 (or a combination code was received from Ask a SEER Registrar). Rule H8 states to code adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes (8255) when there are multiple adenocarcinoma subtypes OR any combination of histologies which are not listed in Table 2. However, both conditions for Rule H8 are already included in Table 2 (the last row). How would one ever move past Rule H7 if all the conditions for both Rules H7 and H8 are covered first under Rule H7?

Example: A resection pathology report proves invasive adenocarcinoma, acinar, solid and papillary types. Rule H7 seems to be the first H Rule that applies as there are multiple histologies (identified using a reportable term: type) AND the combination is listed in Table 2. The last row of Table 2 instructs one to code Adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes (8255) when there are at least two of the subtypes/variants of adenocarcinoma listed in Column 1 (Required Terms). In this case, there were three subtypes/variants that are listed in Column 1 (acinar, solid and papillary). However, Rule H8 also instructs one to, Which rule applies here, Rule H7 or Rule H8?

Is "adenocarcinoma arising in a papillary adenomatous polyp" equivalent to adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma [8261/3] or adenocarcinoma in an adenomatous polyp [8210/3]?

Invasion of the visceral peritoneum is Regional (code 2) in Summary Stage.  EOD PT code 500 is for invasion BEYOND the visceral peritoneum into adjacent connective tissues, and maps to T3 and Regional Summary Stage, but that code seems too extensive. All lower EOD codes map to Localized Summary Stage.

Intrasinusoidal DLBCL was diagnosed by liver biopsy. The bone marrow was involved based on abnormal cytogenetic findings. Per a physician's note, a PTA CT Abd/Pelvis showed hepatosplenomegaly and mild periportal/peripancreatic lymphadenopathy. A GI physician stated the lymphoma involves the veins of the liver.

Should the primary site be coded to the liver [C220] and the histology to 9680/3 [DLBCL]?

Intestine, large -- moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma

Pathological stage: IIIA (T2 N1a Mx) -- Neuroendocrine tumor, G1

Addendum comment: The results of the immunochemical study are compatible with a neuroendocrine tumor, G1.

Insulinoma, NOS is reportable for cases diagnosed 2021 and later. However, the diagnosis of insulinoma is most frequently made with clinical correlation of the patient's clinical syndrome and serum hormone levels. Despite a pathological diagnosis of NET, this will clinically be stated as insulinoma based on the functional type of tumor. At the largest facility in our area, all pathology reports with a diagnosis of insulinoma over the last year only provide a pathological Final Diagnosis of NET (either G1 or G2), but elsewhere specify, Functional Type: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor, functional. Correlation with Clinical Syndrome and Elevated Serum Levels of Hormone Product: Insulin-producing (Insulinoma).

For 2021 and later, it seems this should be accessioned as insulinoma (8151/3), but one cannot arrive at that histology using the current Other Sites (MP/H) H Rules. Following the existing rules, one would code the histology to NET, G1 or NET, G2 (8240 or 8249) per Rule H6. There are technically two specific histologies to consider: NET (either 8240 or 8249) and insulinoma, NOS (8151). Following the H Rules, Rule H6 instructs one to code the histology with the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code (8240 or 8249).

Coding this histology to NET (8240 or 8249) does not seem to reflect the most accurate classification of this tumor, but applying the current rules, this is the only histology that can be coded. There is no current guideline in the Other Sites schema or the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines instructing us to ignore the pathological diagnosis of a NET for these tumors (even though insulinomas are NETs). The only SINQ that currently exists (SINQ 20150019) states the histology can be coded as either a NET or an insulinoma in these cases. How are registrars to consistently code histology for these tumors without a rule clarification?

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

Instruction number 1 under the Coding Multiple Histologies instructions states to code histology when the histology is described as subtype, type or variant. The general rules do indicate we can code the histology identified as type, but when applying the H Rules, it seems an argument could be made for either H1 or H3. H1 applies if you ignore the diagnosis of carcinoma and only code the histologic type: urothelial carcinoma. However, the rules do seem to imply that you take all histologies into account (e.g., code the subtype/variant when there is a not otherwise specified (NOS) and single subtype/variant). Following this logic, Rule H3 seems to be the only rule that fits, and one would code the subtype/variant urothelial carcinoma when the diagnosis is carcinoma NOS, histologic type: urothelial carcinoma.

The problem is that urothelial carcinoma is not a subtype/variant of carcinoma (NOS) per Table 2. The entry for Carcinoma NOS in Table 2 states, Subtypes of carcinoma NOS include adenocarcinoma and all subtypes/variants of adenocarcinoma. To some, urothelial carcinoma is a more specific type of carcinoma; however, urothelial carcinoma is not also listed as a subtype of carcinoma or of adenocarcinoma; only adenocarcinoma is categorized as a subtype of carcinoma. Consistently applying the rules becomes an issue when rules are interpreted in different ways. Should this Table be amended to include urothelial carcinoma as a subtype/variant of carcinoma NOS with the same caveat given to adenocarcinoma in Table 2?

In this scenario, we record that HT began for the second primary on the date of diagnosis, and the Systemic/Surgery Sequence ends up usually being coded 4 because the HT continues even if the specific agent may be changed. This does not seem to meet the definition of neoadjuvant therapy for the second primary so we approach the staging and grade coding as just clinical/pathological? For example, if the tumor size at surgery is a little larger than estimated on imaging, we would use the pathologic size for our staging. The tumor size and grade of the second primary are not being changed by the ongoing HT. Do we have the right approach?