SEER Inquiry System - Search

For example:

-ultrasound of the right eye: consistent with a nevoma/melanoma; we could not find any indication that nevoma is a reportable term

-bladder biopsy pathology report:  severe urothelial dysplasia/carcinoma in situ (CIS)

As a central registry, we receive some limited information cases like this where there is no record of treatment or possibility to follow-back to physicians for clarification, so we want to make sure we are reporting them correctly.

Patient has a diagnosis of myeloid sarcoma presenting as multiple erythematous papules and nodules on back, chest, right arm & shoulder. Oncologist did not mention any evidence or suspicion of an associated AML diagnosis.

HemeRetic schema EOD Primary Tumor Note 1 states that myeloid sarcoma can be coded as localized (code 100) or systemic (code 700). It is not clear what would qualify as systemic disease for myeloid sarcoma.

Example:  Patient scheduled for left nephrectomy on 3/10/20 due to left renal papillary renal cell carcinoma diagnosed on 2/11/20 via needle core biopsy. Abstract indicated surgery was cancelled due to the pandemic. Abstract also indicated the surgery was not rescheduled.

Patient has a remote history of a right thalamic mass status-post two resections; reported as malignant oligodendroglioma (pathology not received) and chemo/radiation therapy, who recently presented with persistent headaches. Imaging revealed a 3.4 cm heterogeneous lobulated right thalamic mass with coarse calcifications and a probable cystic component.

Pathologist indicates the histologic and immunophenotypic features of this neoplasm are that of relatively circumscribed neuroepithelial tumor without high grade features (mitotic activity, microvascular proliferation, necrosis). Molecularly this neoplasm is characterized by a PATZ1-EWSR1 fusion, which has recently been proposed to be a distinct neuroepithelial tumor entity with a broad histological spectrum.

A January 2022 endometrium biopsy and curettage both show final diagnosis of “mild cytologic atypia and glandular crowding, at most endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia.”  Any subsequent surgery path is unlikely to provide clarification.

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?

Patient has a history of AIN I/low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) dating back to at least 2015, was diagnosed with AIN II-III in 12/2019, and then diagnosed again with AIN II-III in 08/2021. There is no indication of treatment or a disease-free interval for this patient.

SINQ 20210015, while not an exact match to this case, implies there is no clear disease-free interval for these AIN diagnoses, so it is the same non-reportable neoplasm diagnosed prior to reportability (12/2019). However, there was a diagnosis of a reportable neoplasm in 2021, so it also seems possible this would be accessioned as a reportable tumor based on a diagnosis of reportable tumor diagnosis in 2021.

With the reportability changes for these intraepithelial neoplasia II/II-III tumors, these situations will arise more frequently.

The 2022 SEER Manual indicates the p16 status (positive or negative) can be used to code more the specific histology for squamous cell carcinoma, human papilloma virus (HPV) positive (8085) and squamous cell carcinoma, HPV negative (8086). However, the histology coding instructions in the Other Sites schema have not been updated and the 2022 SEER Manual does not cover all situations commonly encountered in the registry. Does the clarification regarding p16 apply to these other situations?

1. How is histology coded when the final diagnosis of the most representative specimen is adenocarcinoma (NOS), but the immunohistochemistry is p16 negative? Is this adequate to code histology to 8484/3 (adenocarcinoma, HPV-independent, NOS)? The pathologist did not specifically indicate this was HPV-independent adenocarcinoma, and the clarification in the 2022 SEER Manual does not include this more specific adenocarcinoma histology.
2. How is histology coded when the Pap smear is positive for squamous cell carcinoma, p16 positive, but the most representative specimen from the primary tumor (the subsequent cervix biopsy) is only stated to be squamous cell carcinoma (NOS)? The p16 studies were not repeated on the most representative specimen, and the existing 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology (MP/H) General Rules indicate to code the histology from the most representative specimen over a cytology report. Following the existing 2007 MPH General Rules, the histology should be 8070 (squamous cell carcinoma, NOS). However, this does not account for the p16 status of the tumor.
3. How is histology coded when a biopsy of a metastasis (e.g., a lymph node metastasis) proved squamous cell carcinoma, p16 negative, but a subsequent biopsy of the primary cervix tumor proved squamous cell carcinoma (NOS) without additional IHC studies? Again, the 2007 MP/H General Rules confirm the primary site specimen should be used to code the histology, resulting in a diagnosis of 8070 (squamous cell carcinoma, NOS), but this ignores the p16 status of the tumor.