SEER Inquiry System - Search

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.

The pathology report states this is a rare entity described in case reports and not incorporated into the WHO classification of tumors. A subsequent endocrinology note stated “papillary tumor, benign by path; tumor was not an adenoma; based on one Mayo study, the recurrence risk is low.”

A conjunctival biopsy final diagnosis is squamous mucosa with moderate to high grade dysplasia. The diagnosis comment states that immunostains were performed and confirm squamous histology. This seems to imply a high grade squamous dysplasia, rather than a non-reportable high grade dysplasia.  Does this case meet the criteria for reportable high grade squamous dysplasia?

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 SEER Manual states that the Other Therapy data item identifies treatments given that cannot be classified as surgery, radiation, systemic therapy, or ancillary treatment; and the instructions for code 2, Other-Experimental, say to assign this for any experimental or newly developed treatment, such as a clinical trial, that differs greatly from proven types of cancer therapy.  Does this mean that only unclassifiable treatments should be coded in Other Therapy, even if given as part of a clinical trial? 

For example, if a patient is given a drug as part of a trial that is categorized in SEER*Rx as immunotherapy, should it be assigned both Immunotherapy (NAACCR #1410) code 1 and Other Therapy code 2, or only coded in Immunotherapy since it is classified as such?  How should a clinical trial drug be coded if it has a treatment classification in SEER*Rx, but the type of cancer being treated is not listed under the Primary Site or Remarks sections as being FDA approved?  A real case scenario is atezolizumab given for colon cancer as part of a trial; this drug's category is Immunotherapy in SEER*Rx but colon is not listed under Primary Sites or in the Remarks detailing FDA approvals.

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?