SEER Inquiry System - Search

Example: Initial CT scan impression is large appendiceal mucocele with a moderate amount of right-sided abdominal ascites. Faint mural enhancement suggesting an underlying appendiceal neoplasm (mucinous adenoma or adenocarcinoma).

Appendectomy follows two days later with final diagnosis of high-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm, see comment. Histologic grade: Grade G2 of 4 (based on the CAP protocol) . . . Ascites fluid (ThinPrep(r) and cell block preparations): Mucin, fragments of debris, and macrophages. No diagnostic neoplastic cells are identified . . . Pathologic stage: pT4a, pNX, pM1a (AJCC 8th ed).

Diagnosis Comment states, We feel that there are areas of this tumor where the cytologic atypia is beyond what one would expect in low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm. While mitotic figures are not strikingly increased, there are focal nuclear changes that would support classification of this tumor as high-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm.

Approximately two weeks later the patient has an Oncology assessment stating new diagnosis of T4a, NX, M1a, Stage IVA high-grade mucinous adenocarcinoma of the appendix with mucinous ascites. Patient has had an appendectomy but no further surgery so far. However, anecdotally, the best reported case series has been with surgical debulking followed by HIPEC chemotherapy In that instance I have recommended surgery with intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

Is this a reportable malignancy? If so, what is the best histology for the diagnosis?

Example: FoundationAct assay of circulating tumor DNA in blood sample results: Tumor type = non-small cell lung carcinoma, NOS, with 3 genomic alterations identified: NRAS Q61H, IDH2 R140Q and TP53 V172F. The tumor was identified on imaging and the imaging findings were not clearly what one would expect to see with a SCLC.

Example: Diagnosis is made on liver core biopsy path showing Metastatic carcinoma, poorly-differentiated, consistent with lung primary. Diagnosis Comment notes: Carcinoma cells are positive for CK7 and TTF-1, negative for CK20.

Subsequent immunohistochemistry report for PD-L1 testing states Liver: Metastatic adenocarcinoma consistent with lung primary. Interpretation: no PD-L1 expression.

IHC/Biomarker testing is often performed to determine treatment type, but it seems like some of the biomarkers for treatment planning are also histology specific. The Solid Tumor Rules do not address the use of biomarkers reports in the histology coding instructions.

Example: Breast case where first course treatment plan is neoadjuvant therapy and surgery after. The patient was hospitalized during neoadjuvant therapy, elected hospice, and later died, so the neoadjuvant therapy was never completed, surgery not done. How are the 2021 neoadjuvant therapy fields coded in this situation as neoadjuvant therapy and surgery were part of first course plans. I coded neoadjuvant therapy to 2 - started but not completed, but there are no codes to properly explain the clinical response and therapy treatment effect as the patient did not complete neoadjuvant therapy. Should I use code 9 for clinical response and treatment effect or should this be left blank for this particular case?

Example: Brain MRI shows a mass along underside of right tentorium extending to posterior incisura consistent with meningioma. Spinal MRI shows mass at C4-5 level consistent with meningioma. Resection of spinal meningioma shows final diagnosis of meningioma and College of American Pathologists (CAP) protocol summary indicates Histologic Type (WHO classification of tumors of the central nervous system): Meningioma, meningothelial. There is no resection of the cerebral meningioma planned. Is the CAP protocol used if it provides a further subtype for meningiomas? Per Solid Tumor Rules, the final diagnosis has priority over the CAP summary. The answer to this question does affect the number of primaries accessioned in this case.

Example: Bone marrow biopsy diagnosis is chronic myelogenous leukemia, chronic phase, and the RT-PCR test result proved, BCR-ABL1 p210 (Major Breakpoint) - Detected, 3.3659%.

Even though the p210 fusion transcript was less than 5%, it was detected. The presence of BCR-ABL1 does define whether or not patients are treated with tyrosine kinase therapies. Therefore, it seems likely that the presence of any BCR-ABL1 would be captured using the more specific histology code 9875/3, instead of the non-specific CML, NOS histology code 9863/3.

Are there minimum threshold requirements for these quantitative studies in order to code the histology to the more specific type of CML?

Example: Bladder primary with transurethral resection of the bladder tumor (TURBT) on 2/17/2017 (Date of First Surgical Proc) followed by a second TURBT on 3/24/2017 (Date Most Definitive Surgery) with mitomycin C instilled on the second, most definitive TURB procedure.

There is an edit failure (IFX166) when Systemic/Surgery Sequence is coded 5 (intra-operative systemic) and Systemic Date does not match Date of First Surgical Procedure. How should we capture the intra-operative systemic treatment during the second, most definitive TURB? Is the correct Surgery/Systemic Sequence code 3 (systemic after surgery) for this case because (intra-operative) chemo was technically given after the first surgery?

Example: An October 2017 glans penis biopsy final diagnosis was reported as: Undifferentiated (Warty-Basaloid) penile intraepithelial neoplasia.

In January 2018, an additional penile glans biopsy final diagnosis was reported as: At least squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in situ (HGPIN). Foreskin circumcision on the same pathology report shows SCC in situ.

It is unclear whether the term undifferentiated is synonymous with high-grade for the purposes of determining penile intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN/PEIN) reportability and diagnosis date.

Example: An MRI Spine showed a large expansile mass arising from the sella turcica and extending into the suprasellar cistern, but the radiologist only noted: The leading differential considerations include pituitary macroadenoma or a large suprasellar base meningioma. The patient was subsequently pathologically diagnosed with a pituitary adenoma. It is unclear if the diagnosis date should be coded to the MRI date.

There are two existing SINQ questions regarding the term consider. SINQ 20061094 confirms a diagnosis that is considered to be is reportable because it is unambiguous, but SINQ 20081033 states the phrase malignancy is highly considered is not a reportable ambiguous term.

How should we interpret differential considerations? If differential considerations is equivalent to a differential diagnosis, then this patient was clinically diagnosed on imaging. However, if differential considerations is not reportable, then there was no diagnosis prior to the resection.

Example: An in situ bladder case was diagnosed and treated. Three months later another TURB diagnosed an invasive bladder carcinoma. Is the invasive case reportable to SEER as a new primary?