SEER Inquiry System - Search

Per the SEER*Rx Database, Lupron is coded as Other Therapy for breast cancer until such time that it receives FDA approval. However, SINQ 20021042 states Lupron should be coded as Hormone Therapy when given as cancer-directed therapy. These two sources contradict each other.

Information regarding hormone therapy for breast cancer in both the SEER*Rx Database and the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Topics website (http://www.cancer.gov/types/breast/breast-hormone-therapy-fact-sheet) seem to indicate that the SINQ answer is the correct choice. The NCI Cancer Topics website states that Lupron acts to block ovarian function and is an example of an ovarian suppression drug that has been approved by the FDA. The SEER*Rx Database Remarks section states that a combination of letrozole and leuprolide (Lupron) "is considered standard treatment for metastatic breast cancer and is sometimes used for treatment of early stage breast cancer." But the Remarks go on to state that Lupron should be coded as Other Therapy until it receives FDA approval.

It is unclear how to code Lupron for breast cancers when the NCI website indicates that it is standard treatment while the SEER*Rx Database states both that it is and that it is not standard treatment.

There are multiple SEER Notes in the Breast Surgery Codes of Appendix C instructing us to code tissue expanders as reconstruction but none address the type of reconstruction to be coded.

1. Is a tissue expander always equivalent to Implant reconstruction?

2. Is AlloDerm always equivalent to Tissue reconstruction?

3. Is the combination of AlloDerm and tissue expander always equivalent to Combined (tissue and implant) reconstruction?

The pathology report states "Right mediastinal mass: poorly differentiated non-small cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation." This is the only histologic confirmation of this lung primary that is collected.

The MP/H Equivalent Terms and Definitions for Colon indicate that type, subtype, predominantly, with features of, major, or with ___ differentiation are all equivalent in terms of coding histology. However, this is not indicated in the General Instructions (e.g., Histologic Type ICD-O-3 or General Instructions Histology Coding Rules). It also is not included as a Note under the Rules where one would expect to use these terms, for example, Rule H7. Is this an oversight or error in the Manual?

In this case, Rule H7 seems to be the first (and most appropriate) rule that applies to this mixed histology tumor. However, the specific histology terms that an invasive tumor may be identified as, are only listed under Rule H13. Can these same terms be used when applying rules for which they are not specifically noted? It would seem logical to use the equivalent histology terms to code a mixed histology tumor identified as a subtype or with features, etc., despite the fact that the specific terms are not listed under Rule H7.

The SEER Coding and Staging Manual instructs one to code the primary site to the location where the tumor originated, in this case the liver. However, there is no CS Extension code for in situ tumors found in the CS Manual Liver Schema.

Kidney: originally diagnosed 12/21/2011 with right renal pelvis high grade papillary urothelial cancer. Status post right nephrectomy. Then on 01/10/2013 diagnosed with low grade papillary urothelial cancer of the bladder. 01/21/2013 diagnosed with left renal pelvis urothelial carcinoma iIn situ. Path report stated this may represent a hgh grade papillary urothelial cancer – unable to confirm due to specimen size. On 01/24/2013 left periaortic lymph node biopsy revealed poorly differentiated carcinoma consistent with prior diagnosed right renal pelvis high grade urothelial cancer. Neither the bladder nor the left renal pelvis tumor was compared to the previous right renal pelvis tumor. Also has bone mets.

SINQ 20130176 states that an adult granulosa cell tumor of the ovary with metastases is malignant. However, SINQ 20091087 states that a borderline tumor of the appendix with metastasis is not reportable.

The first statement of 20130176 “though granulosa cell tumor is coded 8620/1, the presence of peritoneal or lymph node metastases indicate the tumor is malignant and coded as /3” does not coincide with the second statement of “the behavior of borderline/LMP ovarian epithelial tumors is determined by the ovarian primary, even though there may be peritoneal implants or metastatic disease in the lymph nodes”. If the ovarian metastases do make this a reportable malignancy, can this line of thinking be used to determine reportability for borderline histologies for other sites such as the appendix?