SEER Inquiry System - Search

Since AIN I is not reportable and AIN II is not reportable until 2021, we are not sure if we can say the patient was disease free because there was no intervening reportable tumor (AIN III), or was never disease free because there was evidence of related disease (lower grade dysplasia).

The physician stated the prior LUL adenosquamous carcinoma was PD-L1 negative and the LUL squamous cell carcinoma is PD-L1 positive and is calling it a new primary.

5/22-7/3/19 6000x30 IMRT Photons LUL lung Chemo refused Not a Surg candidate

10/01/2019 CT Chest: IMP: In comparison to CT chest 03/06/2019 and PET/CT 03/21/2019, left lingular mass has mildly decreased in size. Left apical anterior and posterior lung lesions more anterior lesion appears slightly increased in size, the other slight decreased in size, with adjacent areas of atelectasis and scarring.

06/23/2020 CT Chest: MP: In comparison to CT chest 10/1/2019, left lingular mass has increased in size concerning for increasing tumor with adjacent thicker focal pleural thickening involving the chest wall, concerning for possible chest wall invasion. Left apical anterior and posterior lung lesions appears more solid in appearance, representing known adeno CA, given that the appearance has changed, is concerning for residual tumor.

07/06/2020 PET: Hypermetabolic lingular mass and peripheral nodularity has increased in size and FDG avidity on the prior PET/CT. Left apical nodular opacity is difficult to separate from fairly uniform mild left apical pleural hypermetabolism which may be treatment related and/or neoplastic.

Patient was initially diagnosed with a right lower lobe (RLL) lung adenocarcinoma in 2014 followed by subsequent right upper lobe (RUL) lung adenocarcinoma in 2016 (single primary). Both were treated with radiation and the nodules were seen as stable on surveillance. There was subsequent growth in the RUL nodule in 2019 and RLL nodule in 2020 as well as a new right middle lobe (RML) nodule in 2020. All left sided nodules were noted to be stable and/or ground glass opacities.

There was no documented diagnosis of malignancy in the left lung until June 2020 when the physician noted that if there was a response in the left lung to systemic treatment, then this was probably multifocal AIS. However, only one tumor in the left lung responded to treatment.

While it seems somewhat unlikely that only a single AIS in the contralateral lung should be metastasis from the right lung malignancy, it is difficult to apply the multiple tumors rules to this case.

Autopsy/Pathology Report (2020) excerpts

External Examination

Nervous System: There is an 8.5 cm mass located in the right thoracic paraspinal area.

Final Anatomic Diagnosis

Clinical History: Paraspinal mass suspicious for neuroblastic tumor (detected by imaging studies)

Nervous System: Right thoracic paraspinal neuroblastoma, poorly differentiated

Neither the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines nor the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Guidelines (including Tables 1-7) address reportability changes for chondrosarcoma grade 1. In the Solid Tumor Rules Manual, Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions, Table 7 (Tumors of Odontogenic and Maxillofacial Bone (Mandible, Maxilla)), Chrondrosarcoma grade 2/3 (9220/3) is included as a subtype/variant for sarcomas in these sites, but it does not address chrondrosarcoma, grade 1.

The ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table lists Chondrosarcoma, grade 1 as morphology code 9222/1. If Chondrosarcoma, grade 1 is no longer a reportable tumor for cases diagnosed 01/01/2021 and later, why wasn't this reportability change included in the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines? If the standard setters chose not to include this reportability change, shouldn't Table 7 also indicate that all chondrosarcomas (NOS, grade 1, grade 2 or grade 3) are reportable for cases diagnosed 2018 and later?

How are registrars to make reportability and histology coding decisions for chondrosarcomas when neither source provides clear instructions regarding these tumors?

Rule H4 states: Code 8723/3 (malignant melanoma, regressing) when the diagnosis is regressing melanoma. However, if the diagnosis was strictly regressing melanoma or malignant melanoma, regressing, the first rule that applies is Rule H1 because regressing melanoma is a single, specific histologic type and Rule H1 states: Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. Following the current rules, one would never arrive at Rule H4. Should the H Rules be reordered? Or should an example of when one would use Rule H4 be added to clarify when to use this rule?

Rule H6 states: Code 8742/3 (Lentigo maligna melanoma) when the diagnosis is lentigo maligna melanoma with no other histologic types. However, if the diagnosis was strictly lentigo maligna or lentigo maligna melanoma, the first rule that applies is Rule H1 because lentigo maligna melanoma is a single, specific histologic type and Rule H1 states, Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. Following the current rules, one would never arrive at Rule H6. Should the H Rules be reordered? Or should an example of when one would use Rule H6 be added to clarify when to use this rule?

There is a discrepancy in the SEER and STORE manual definition of code 2 for Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site. STORE includes progression of tumor prior to planned surgery as part of the definition for code 2, but the SEER Manual does not. The progression statement is included in the SEER Manual (2018 and 2021) for Reason for No Radiation, but not for Reason for No Surgery.