SEER Inquiry System - Search

We are seeing the term "incidentaloma" on magnetic resonance imaging (MR) reports of head and also with physician statements. For example, this MR of the head: Impression--Suboptimal study due to motion degradation. Heterogeneously enhancing pituitary gland without evidence of acute abnormality. A 3 mm focus of relative hypoenhancement in the left gland is favored to represent an incidentaloma. Advise correlation with clinical findings.

Also, there are cases where the scans show meningioma and then at a later date it is stated to be an incidentaloma in physician notes.

Is the term "incidentaloma" alone reportable, if the term "tumor" for CNS cases is never stated? When I googled the term, it is stated to mean "tumor."

At the central registry, we have accessioned this scenario as three primaries per Multiple Primaries/Histology (MP/H) Rule M10 (diagnosed more than 1 year apart), as the patient was stated to be disease free between each occurrence. However, the diagnosing/treating facility is not reporting these cases due to clinical statements of recurrent disease.

This is an example of a case type identified on casefinding audits conducted by our central registry in which we have learned SEER's expectation of MP/H rule application does not match hospital reporting. Can the 2018 version of the MP/H rules more clearly address how this type of clinically recurrent (multiple times) case should be handled?

Patient has only a LUL tumor on imaging. The tumor board initially states, possibly a mixed tumor, likely IIIA SCC and/or IIIA or B small cell. Later, the physician refers to it as "Stage III lung cancer, mixed histology with small cell in the lymph node and squamous cell in the LUL mass." Patient has no further workup and has declined therapy.

I recently did a presentation on coding the data item Race. In my presentation I discussed understanding geography help code race in some circumstances. One of the slides demonstrates how large Polynesia is and what Pacific islands are found in Polynesia, such as, Tahiti, Samoa, and even Hawaii, all of which have their own codes. Someone in the audience asked "How do you code New Zealand? Upon some research, New Zealand is not listed in Appendix D of the SEER coding manual. We could code them 01-White. But research shows there is a very large indigenous population. Technically, New Zealand is located within the boundaries of Polynesia - Code 25 (Polynesian).

Rectal mass biopsy final diagnosis: High grade neuroendocrine tumor (WHO Grade 3). Neither SINQ 20170033 nor 20160023 address coding histology or grade for neuroendocrine tumors that are designated as high grade and/or WHO grade 3.

Pathology--Final description: Uterus, cervix, bilateral fallopian tubes and ovaries, total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy: Endometrial adenocarcinoma, endometrioid type, well differentiated, FIGO 1/3. Myometrial invasion: focal myometrial invasion (30% of myometrium) Tumor size: 2 x2 cm Tumor site: Fundus, exophytic/polypoid lesion Gross description: The 3.0 cm in length by 2.5 cm in diameter triangular endometrium is tan-red and smooth with a 2.0 x 2.0 cm tan-pink, exophytic fundic mass which extends on to both anterior and posterior aspects, 4.1 cm from the os.

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?