SEER Inquiry System - Search

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."

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).

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?

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 patient has a history of CLL/SLL dating back to 2007, but has had progressive disease with development of a new left frontal brain tumor. The brain tumor resection proved CLL/SLL with large cell transformation, but neither the pathologist nor the managing physician called this a Richter transformation, Richter syndrome or provided a diagnosis of DLBCL. However, a large cell transformation of CLL/SLL is a Richter transformation. Can this be accessioned as a new acute neoplasm per Rule M10?

Pathology report: Left lower lobe lung, Tumor Size: Greatest dimension: 3.0 cm Additional dimensions: 2.5 x 2.0 cm; Tumor Focality: Unifocal; Histologic Type: Invasive adenocarcinoma Solid predominant with mucin production; Histologic Grade: G3: Poorly differentiated. Is the correct histology for this case 8230/3 (rule H5) or 8255/3 (rule H6)?

Per SINQ 20130176 and 20140034, adult granulosa cell tumors of the ovary are reportable malignant tumors when there are peritoneal implants or metastases. The SINQ responses describe how these adult granulosa cell tumors are different from low malignant potential (LMP) epithelial ovarian tumors. Would these SINQ scenarios apply to a case with intraoperative tumor rupture that resulted in peritoneal tumor?

In this case, the pathologist indicated these excised peritoneal specimens were favored to be intraoperative contamination with adult granulosa cell tumor. However, the oncologist went on to treat this patient as high risk with chemotherapy. The oncologist only described one of the pelvic peritoneal implants as possibly contamination due to the rupture. The oncologist never indicated the tumors were definitely peritoneal implants. Should the behavior of this tumor be /1 because the peritoneal tumor appears to be contamination, or /3 because the oncologist treated this patient as high risk?

The physician consult in this case further specifies that the large granular lymphocyte disorder represents an autoimmune disease of autoimmune T-cell mediated mechanism. Is this a reportable diagnosis?

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.

Pathology report diagnosis: Urethral lesion: Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate, see microscopic. Clinical Information: Urethral Lesion/Hematura. Microscopic Description: The biopsy shows dilated ductal structures filled with anaplastic epithelium showing areas of comedo-type necrosis. The tumor cells have enlarged nuclei prominent nucleoli and mitoses are identified. Surrounding benign prostatic tissue is also present. Immunostains show that the tumor cells stain for PSA, PSAP, P504s but are negative for GATA-3. The other components of the PIN 4 stain CK5/14 and P63 stain the basal cells surrounding the tumor confirming the intraductal nature of the process. Intraductal carcinoma should not be confused with high grade PIN as the former is usually associated with high grade invasive tumor. Is this C619 and 8500/2?