SEER Inquiry System - Search

This terminology is not specifically included in either alternate names list for myelodysplastic syndrome, NOS (9989/3) or refractory anemia with excess blasts (9983/3).

Example: Bone Marrow Biopsy, Final Diagnosis: Consistent with involvement by myelodysplastic syndrome with excess blasts-2 (MDS EB-2).

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?

Surgery text indicates TAH-BSO with bilateral pelvic and paraaortic lymph node dissection. The pathology report indicates the specimen includes: Uterine corpus, cervix, bilateral ovaries and fallopian tubes, bilateral parametria. The Gross Description also indicates: Representative sections submitted in 16 cassettes as follows: A1: Anterior cervix A2: Posterior cervix A3: Full thickness anterior lower uterine segment A4: Full thickness posterior lower uterine segment A5: Tumor A6-A7: Full thickness anterior endomyometrium to include tumor A8-A10: Full thickness posterior endomyometrium with tumor A11: Representative sections of right fallopian tube and fimbria A12: Representative sections of right ovary A13: Representative sections of left fallopian tube and fimbria A14: Representative sections of left ovary A15: Right parametrial tissue A16: Left parametrial tissue A17-23: Remainder of cervix.

Patient had a biopsy in April 2014; pathology was reported as non-small cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine phenotype, possible large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. The patient had five cycles of cisplatin/etoposide with no response. In May 2015, a re-biopsy at a referral institution reports poorly differentiated small cell carcinoma and states "feels that this could have been the histology all along and why patient has failed multi lines of chemo."

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 report microscopic description: The tumor is a meningothelial neoplasm (EMA+; BCL-2 and CD34 negative) with prominent collagen deposition. Necrosis and prominent nucleoli are present; no other atypical features are seen. Mitoses are present, up to 2 per 10 high-powered fields. Final Diagnosis: Dura, bicoronal craniotomy (specimen A): Meningioma with atypical features.

There is no rule in benign brain and CNS section of Multiple Primary/Histology (MP/H) Rules stating to code the most specific histologic term when the diagnosis is (something less specific, i.e., adenocarcinoma). This rule is in other site chapters of MP/H but appears missing in the benign brain and CNS section.

Patient was diagnosed with DCIS of the left breast in June 2014. The patient had a simple mastectomy with 2 axillary lymph nodes removed. The final diagnosis was intermediate to high grade ductal carcinoma in situ, predominantly micropapillary type, forming a 1.4 cm mass. No invasive carcinoma identified. Margins negative. In April 2017, the patient was found to have parietoccipital bone lesions, which were resected. The resulting diagnosis was metastatic carcinoma, morphologically consistent with breast primary " See Comment: The previous breast lesion is not available for review at the time of signout. However, the tumor is morphologically compatible with a breast primary.

SINQ 20110111 would not make this is new primary. However, it seems that rule M8 might apply. An invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days after diagnosis is a multiple primary. See Note 2: Abstract as multiple primaries even if the medical record/physician states it is recurrence or progression of disease.

The Summary Cancer Data does not seem to describe a more specific histology, but it does describe the tumor histology with the worst outcome and the most extensive tumor. The anaplastic carcinoma grossly extended into skeletal muscle and gave rise to multiple regional lymph node metastases. The more appropriate histology seems to be 8021.

However, current MP/H Rules for a single tumor indicate the histology should be coded to the numerically higher histology code (8260). Coding the histology to 8260 does not account for the more aggressive tumor. Should this histology be 8260 or 8021?