SEER Inquiry System - Search

Lymphoma case diagnosed in 2021: The patient had first round of systemic therapy as documented in the treatment plan and a post-chemotherapy PET scan that showed residual disease. The patient then had a different combination of systemic therapy and still had some residual disease. The patient was given a third round of different combination of systemic therapy in preparation for stem cell transplant. According to the physician post-stem cell transplant note, the patient achieved complete remission.

Is the first course of therapy the first round of systemic therapy only or is it all the therapy given to achieve remission?  It seems like only the first round of systemic therapy is first course of therapy for both leukemia and lymphoma in the hematopoietic manual. I thought all treatment for all hematopoietic cases was first course until remission achieved or progression was evident.

The left thyroid lobectomy/isthmusectomy returned a diagnosis of sclerosing mucoepidermoid carcinoma with eosinophina, 6.5 cm, replacing nearly the entire left lobe of the thyroid.

The patient has a completion thyroidectomy of the right lobe and returned the diagnosis of papillary thyroid carcinoma, 0.5 mm, in maximum dimension.

The endocrinologist describes it as "co-exsisting" and states the tumor is iodine non-avid.

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.

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?

The patient underwent a resection of the transitional meningioma in 2012, but residual tumor was left behind. The patient was on surveillance until imaging showed growth of the residual tumor. The resection in 2022 proved atypical meningioma.

Rule M2, the first rule that applies, indicates this situation represents a single primary (a single tumor). However, Rule M4 states the transformation from a benign meningioma to a borderline meningioma would only be a single primary if the meningioma was a NOS.

This patient has microscopic confirmation of a meningioma showing different subtypes/variants (listed in Column 3, Table 6). Should this be accessioned as multiple primaries based on the transformation and distinctly different histologies?

2022 case: Surgical Pathology Report-spinal cord tumor, biopsies: ALK-positive neoplasm most consistent with ALK-positive histiocytosis.

We were previously told that papillary microcarcinoma is coded to 8260 (papillary thyroid carcinoma) and not papillary microcarcinoma (8341). That is an area of confusion. 

The Schema ID for C051 (soft palate, NOS) and C052 (uvula) is Oropharynx (either 00100 or 00111 depending on p16). The Solid Tumor Rules Manual includes these site codes are under Table 4: Tumors of Oral Cavity and Mobile Tongue site group for histology coding. We are aware of the notes that allow coding of 8086 for keratinizing SCC, HPV-negative for sites listed in Table 5 only. However, it seems like C051 and C052 were incorrectly omitted from Table 5 (mis-categorized under Table 4). Can we code 8085 for 8086 for C051 or C052 based on p16/HPV status?

11/16/20: Patient diagnosed with endometrial cancer on by MRI of the pelvis; 11.5 cm uterine mass consistent with cancer with no lymphadenopathy.

1/6/21: Patient had a total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection. Operative report stated patient had mildly enlarged bilateral pelvic nodes.

Path report: Endometrioid adenocarcinoma with invasion of the serosa. Five bilateral pelvic nodes were sampled and negative. Originally, staging had patient as node negative.

1/22/21: Patient had post op imaging done that showed metastatic retroperitoneal, aortocaval, and possibly left iliac lymph nodes. Physician changed staging to include the lymph node involvement.

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.