SEER Inquiry System - Search

The patient had neoadjuvant chemotherapy (Carboplatin and Paclitaxel) concurrent with radiation per the managing physician. The physician stated the patient completed the neoadjuvant therapy; however, it was also noted that patient completed five cycles of chemotherapy, but the sixth cycle was held due to neutropenia.

The SEER Manual does not address how to code Neoadjuvant Therapy when the patient completed almost all the planned neoadjuvant therapy. It seems inappropriate to code Neoadjuvant Therapy as 2 (Started but not completed) simply because the patient did not have one cycle of chemotherapy but is otherwise felt to have completed neoadjuvant therapy per the managing physician. Does the managing physician’s statement of “completion” impact how this scenario is coded?

The WHO Classification of Hematopoietic Tumors (Blue Book), 5th edition states: “Rare cases of classic follicular lymphoma with cytological features of follicular lymphoma (FL) grade 3A can present with a prominent diffuse pattern. In the previous edition, such cases were defined as diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Currently, it is uncertain whether such cases should be classified as FL or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; and in such cases, individual treatment choices should be made in multidisciplinary conference settings taking into consideration clinical, laboratory, and imaging parameters. The presence of diffuse areas composed entirely or predominantly of large cells, however, warrants a diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.”

Our concern is that the Hematopoietic (Heme) Manual and Database do not provide instruction for coding this scenario. We hesitate to interpret the terms “equivalent to” as ambiguous because one could argue it is unambiguous. Barring this argument, the M and H rules would indicate this is a diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. However, the physician does not seem to agree with the pathologist.

We know that physician TNM staging is not always accurate, and we also know that doctors sometimes use information in assigning their TNM which may not be available to registrars. Is it a discrepancy when the documentation in the chart is unclear or not definitive, yet the physician assigns a TNM that seems to incorporate that documentation? Or is a discrepancy an obvious conflict between chart documentation and the doctor’s staging – such as a mis-assignment of TNM category that doesn’t at all match with clear and complete medical record documentation, or the physician’s use of criteria that should be excluded from the TNM assignment per AJCC guidelines?

A real case example is a patient with breast carcinoma, imaging states 12 cm tumor with thickening of dermis, and thickening of morphologically suspicious internal mammary and level 1-2 axillary lymph nodes. Medical oncologist states locally advanced breast cancer with extensive changes involving skin thickening associated with the mass, at least stage IIIC based on imaging and exam findings, cT4 N3b. Only axillary nodes were sampled and found to be positive. Post-neoadjuvant therapy resection showed only focal DCIS. Per EOD guidelines, would the oncologist’s staging be a discrepancy with the chart documentation and therefore ignored, with EOD-Primary Tumor coded 200 for skin thickening, and EOD-Lymph Nodes 200 for involvement of axillary nodes only? Or would the doctor’s TNM be a clarification/confirmation of documentation terms that we otherwise would not code, with EOD-PT coded 400 for extensive skin involvement and EOD-LNs 600 for internal mammary + axillary nodes?

There appears to be discrepant information in the 2024 (and prior) SEER manual regarding race coding when the patient is described only as Hispanic/Latina. Page 78 tells us to Code as 01 (White) when: b. There is a statement that the patient is Hispanic or Latino(a) and no further information is available

1. A person of Spanish origin may be any race; however, for coding race when there is no further information other than “Hispanic” or “Latino(a),” assign race as White as a last resort instead of coding unknown.

However, in Appendix D, under "Other Race descriptions", there is a statement that "If no further information is available, code as 99 Unknown." The list includes "Hispanic."

2012 Total abdominal hysterectomy - bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy

Primary Site – Ovary, Right

Histology - Small-Cell Carcinoma (Hypercalcemic Type), Large-Cell Variant

2024 Total abdominal hysterectomy - bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy

Primary Site – Ovary, Left

Histology - Small-Cell Carcinoma (Hypercalcemic Type), Large-Cell Variant

Note 1 states that this histology is treatment-related neuroendocrine prostatic carcinoma demonstrating complete neuroendocrine differentiation or partial neuroendocrine differentiation with adenocarcinoma after androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Conversely, Note 2 says to code 8574/3 only when there is no history of previous prostate adenocarcinoma or history of androgen-deprivation therapy.

The WHO Blue Book does confirm this is a treatment-related histology, so it seems we would only use this for an adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation (or even possibly a mixed histology tumor with adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma components) if the patient had previous treatment.

If this histology is treatment-related, why would we use this code for a patient without a history of prostate adenocarcinoma or androgen-deprivation therapy? Should Note 2 be corrected?

Does this histology apply to a post-treatment diagnosis of mixed adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma? If yes, should this clarification be added?

Additional comments in this pathology report state "The entire case was sent in consultation to an ophthalmic pathologist. [Pathologist] assigns a conjunctival melanocytic intraepithelial neoplasia (C-MIN) score of 2-3 due to the upward pagetoid migration of small, dendritic melanocytes. A C-MIN score of 2-3 is between low-grade conjunctival melanocytic intraepithelial lesion (LG-CMIL; C-MIN 2) and high-grade conjunctival intraepithelial lesion (HG-CMIL; C-MIN 3). The older terminology for this lesion would be primary acquired melanosis (PAM) with mild to focally moderate atypia."

This term does not appear in the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual (SPCSM), Appendix E1 of the SPCSM, or Solid Tumor Rules (specifically rule H3) . 

Example: Patient has a 2023 brain MRI described as having a “new dural based nodule, statistically meningioma, along the left distal tentorial incisura.” All subsequent chart information is related to patient’s unrelated diagnosis of multiple sclerosis only.

Is the terminology “statistically” reportable ambiguous terminology in this context?