SEER Inquiry System - Search

From a number of definitions reviewed, it seems unclear if it's part of the appendix or the cecum of the colon. For example: The cecum is usually located in the right iliac fossa. In the pole of the cecum, there is often the appearance of fusion of the three teniae coli around the appendix, giving rise to the tri-radiate fold (Mercedes Benz sign), but the anatomy can be variable. The most reliable landmarks of the cecum are the appendiceal orifice and ileocecal valve. The appendiceal orifice is usually an unimpressive slit, often crescentic in shape. The ileocecal valve is made up of the superior and inferior lips (usually not seen en face) and is the gateway leading into the terminal ileum. It is located on the prominent ileocecal fold encircling the cecum, between 3 and 5 cm distal to the cecal pole. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212097113701730)

The partial nephrectomy final diagnosis is renal cell neoplasm. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) Summary lists histology as: multilocular clear cell neoplasm of low malignant potential. The diagnosis comment adds: This neoplasm currently termed multilocular clear cell renal cell neoplasm of low malignant potential (WHO 2016), was previously termed cystic renal cell carcinoma.

Patient is an 11 month old with brain biopsy showing final diagnosis of pineal anlage tumor. How are behavior and histology coded for this rare tumor?

The FORDS Manual (pg. 22) states: The first course of treatment includes all methods of treatment recorded in the treatment plan and administered to the patient before disease progression or recurrence. The instructions in the FORDS Manual and clarification from multiple CAnswer Forum posts indicates the planned first course treatment stops following disease progression, even when the first course treatment plan is not altered or changed.

SEER, on the other hand, instructs registrars to do the opposite. The SEER Manual instructs registrars to code all completed treatment given as part of the initial first course treatment plan, even after disease progression, provided the treatment plan is not changed or altered. (See 2016 SEER Manual, Section VII First Course of Therapy, Treatment Timing, Rule 1 and Example 1.)

For consistency in data collection, shouldnt the standard setters use the same guidelines to define first course treatment? Given that the majority of cases are reported to SEER by registrars in CoC facilities, who may not be abstracting treatment modalities that occur after progression, the SEER expectation is likely not able to be performed consistently. Wont this difference in standard setter data collection expectations negatively impact the treatment data reflected on our files?

The pathologist noted this was a challenging brain neoplasm that did not easily fit into a specific WHO diagnostic classification. Multiple differential diagnoses were given including pilomyxoid astrocytoma, ganglioglioma and dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumor (DNET), but there were no definitive features characteristic of any of these tumors. In the Comment section following the Final Diagnosis, it further states: "In summary, the tumor appears to be a difficult to classify non-infiltrating glial/glioneuronal neoplasm without definitive high-grade features."

Diagnosis: Fragmented appendix with: Goblet cell carcinoid tumor (typical goblet cell carcinoid): WELL DIFFERENTIATED neuroendocrine tumor; INTERMEDIATE GRADE (GRADE 2 NET). Size 3.5 cm according to surgical pathology report. Tumor infiltrates through appendiceal wall to subserosa. Tumor is present in what appears to be the wall of the appendix near the perforation site or in hemorrhagic tissue on the surface of the appendix. MAXIMUM MITOTIC RATE IS TWO (2) FIGURES PER 10 HIGH POWER fields (2/10hpf). (4/10 hpf according to report).

WD indicates a 3- grade system (code 1 for WD) Intermediate grade indicates a 3- grade system (code grade 3 for intermediate grade), Grade 2 indicates a 2- grade system (code 2 for grade 2). Please advise.

The clinical documentation clearly identifies residual tumor after the 2011 craniotomy. Scans demonstrated slow enlargement of the tumor over the years, which resulted in a repeat craniotomy. The pathologist noted in the diagnosis comment section of the pathology report that

Is this a single primary per MP/H Rule M3 (A single tumor is always a single primary), or an additional brain malignancy per MP/H Rule M8 (Tumors with ICD-O-3 histology codes on different branches in Chart 1 or Chart 2 are multiple primaries)?

Patient had radical resection of pelvic giant cell tumor of bone in August 2012. Final diagnosis clarified that no features to suggest a frankly malignant giant cell tumor were identified.

July 2013 left upper lobe nodules were removed and found to be consistent with multifocal metastatic lung involvement with a previous pelvic giant cell tumor of bone. However, the pathology report comment specifies there are no histological high-grade features to suggest a malignancy:

While SINQ 20091087 may apply, these metastases clearly arrived in the lung by hematogenous spread. The previous SINQ note refers to a case where the implants/metastases can seed the surrounding pelvic and abdominal structures by rupture of the tumor or intraoperative tumor spillage. That type of spread is not quite the same as the current case showing tumor cells leaving the primary tumor/site and travelling through the blood to implant in the lungs.