SEER Inquiry System - Search

Example

Cecum, right hemicolectomy: poorly differentiated invasive adenocarcinoma of the cecum. Large vessel invasion (V2-grossly evident) is present. Microscopic description: The grossly described matted lymph node tissue shows an irregular nuclear contour and is classified as V2, grossly evident venous invasion based on staging criteria of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 6th Edition.

Per note 2 in the coding scheme for CS-Extension, a nodule with irregular contour in the pericolic adipose tissue should be coded in CS-Extension to code 45. Is the large vessel invasion described in the path report the same process as a tumor nodule in pericolic fat? Should note 2 be used and CS-Extension coded to 45?

Example 4:  Esophageal biopsy with diagnosis of “focal areas suspicious for adenocarcinoma in situ.” Diagnosis on partial esophagectomy specimen “with foci of high grade dysplasia; no invasive carcinoma identified.” Do not accession the case. The esophagectomy proved that the suspicious biopsy result was false.

Appendix E2 #32 of the SEER Manual states high grade dysplasia in site other than stomach, small intestines, and esophageal primary sites are not reportable. Does this mean high grade dysplasia is reportable for esophagus primaries?

Example 1: Physician states patient has an almost certain melanoma. Due to the patient's age, there is no plan to for any treatment or further workup. Almost certain is not listed as a reportable phrase, so typically we would not accession this case.

Example 2: Imaging states a diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma until proven otherwise. No additional workup is available at this facility. This terminology is also not seen on the ambiguous reportable terminology list but we are seeing it more often and wanted confirmation.

Example 1: Peripheral smear states: "No morphologic evidence of chronic myelogenous leukemia."

Addendum: Molecular diagnostic studies showed a positive rearrangement for the BCR gene with the M-bcr (CML type) and of bcr-abl transcript expression".

Example 2: Hematopathology is negative.

Molecular diagnostic study: "fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) studies exceeded the limits established by the XXX Cytogenetics Laboratory for this probe set, and thus, demonstrated statistical evidence of BCR/ABL fusion."

Example 1: Patient with B symptoms. Physical exam reveals large neck mass. Physician impression is lymphoma.

Example 2: CT scans show lymphadenopathy consistent with lymphoma.

In both cases, patient does not return for biopsies.

Example 1: Patient has a history of a BSO without an indication that it was done for malignancy. Pt has a resection. No ovarian tissue found. No site is mentioned in the pathology report. The clinician refers to the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in the pelvis as an "ovarian" primary.

Example 2: Resected ovaries are negative. No specific site of origin is mentioned in the path. Again, the clinician refers to the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in the pelvis as an "ovarian" primary.

Example 1: Operative report states the surgery is a right breast simple mastectomy. There is no lymph node removal documented or attempted; however, a single incidental intramammary node is found in the final pathology results. How should these nodes be captured in the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field?

CAnswer Forum states to code Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery as 0 (No regional lymph nodes removed), see Scope LN surgery, incidental LN found on path, Breast.

However, SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2018 instruction states: Code the removal of intra-organ lymph nodes in Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery. Example: Local excision of breast cancer. Specimen includes an intra-mammary lymph node. Assign code 4 (1 to 3 regional lymph nodes removed).

The STORE 2018 Manual does not provide instruction for incidental nodes specifically, but does appear to be focused on capturing procedural intent.

Example 2: Patient has bilateral breast primaries. Operative report states the surgery is bilateral simple/skin-sparing mastectomies with bilateral sentinel node biopsies and immediate reconstruction. However, pathology shows that the left breast specimens are labeled: (a) Left breast mastectomy, (b) Left sentinel lymph node biopsy, (c) Additional left lymph nodes biopsy, and (d) Left axillary contents biopsy. The total nodes removed for this case are: 2/2 positive SLN, 0/1 positive intramammary nodes, 1/1 positive additional lymph node, and 3/3 positive axillary contents nodes. How should these nodes be captured in the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field?

Example 1: No pathology specimen is available from the primary site for a lung primary. Rib biopsy demonstrated "anaplastic adenocarcinoma."

Example 2: Lung tissue biopsy revealed "poorly differentiated non-small cell carcinoma" for a lung primary. Pleural effusion cytology was consistent with "adenocarcinoma".

Example 1: Lung-Wedge resection and subsequent left lower lobe lobectomy showed papillary epithelial neoplasia. Tumor board and subsequent reports state "nonsmall cell carcinoma of lung."

Example 2: Kidney-Partial nephrectomy showed epithelial neoplasm, clear cells with low grade cytology. Subsequent urology clinic notes state that path revealed clear cell renal carcinoma.

2004 SEER manual states that "cases clinically diagnosed are reportable. If the physician treats a patient for cancer in spite of the negative biopsy, accession the case." Do we also accession the case if primary site has been resected? Would diagnostic confirmation be coded 8 (clinical diagnosis only)?

Example 1: Lung primary within the right lower lobe described clinically as greater than 3 cm on scan but was found to be 3 cm at autopsy.

Example 2: CT scan February shows 2 cm mass in RUL.

In both cases, the only tumor description was the size of tumor without any information regarding extension.