SEER Inquiry System - Search

1) In the SEER Manual's code definitions for Neoadjuvant Therapy - Treatment Effect, some sites specify the percentage of viable tumor. Pathology reports often list this along with the percentage of necrosis (e.g., 10% necrosis and 90% viable tumor). If only the percent necrosis is stated, is it acceptable to infer the percent viable tumor? For example, pathology report states only "treatment effect: present, necrosis extent: 30%" - could we then deduce that the percent viable tumor in this case would be 70%?

2) Can statements of Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) Class be used?  For example, pathology report states Treatment Effect: Residual Cancer Burden Class II, with no further description of partial vs. complete response. It appears that RCB Class II is a "moderate burden" of residual tumor after neoadjuvant therapy; could this be interpreted as a partial response in the Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect code definitions?

1. Lymphoma involves the spleen and the splenic lymph nodes.

2. MALT Lymphoma involves the stomach and the gastric and iliac lymph nodes.

1) Is the operative report only used for margins when the wide excision states no residual disease and no margins are stated on path report? Or do you use the operative report too for margins when the wide excision has residual melanoma and margins are negative but distance is not stated on path report? Does it matter if there was residual melanoma on the wide excision or not as far as using the operative report for margins?

2) Do these rules only apply to melanoma cases or do they also apply to Merkel cell?

3) Did CoC and SEER both agree on this? Are they going to send out an update because this is not how I interpret what is in the STORE manual/SEER manual under the surgery codes. It might be good to send out an official update to the surgical coding rules if this is how we are to code now.

Example: Initial CT scan impression is large appendiceal mucocele with a moderate amount of right-sided abdominal ascites. Faint mural enhancement suggesting an underlying appendiceal neoplasm (mucinous adenoma or adenocarcinoma).

Appendectomy follows two days later with final diagnosis of high-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm, see comment. Histologic grade: Grade G2 of 4 (based on the CAP protocol) . . . Ascites fluid (ThinPrep(r) and cell block preparations): Mucin, fragments of debris, and macrophages. No diagnostic neoplastic cells are identified . . . Pathologic stage: pT4a, pNX, pM1a (AJCC 8th ed).

Diagnosis Comment states, We feel that there are areas of this tumor where the cytologic atypia is beyond what one would expect in low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm. While mitotic figures are not strikingly increased, there are focal nuclear changes that would support classification of this tumor as high-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm.

Approximately two weeks later the patient has an Oncology assessment stating new diagnosis of T4a, NX, M1a, Stage IVA high-grade mucinous adenocarcinoma of the appendix with mucinous ascites. Patient has had an appendectomy but no further surgery so far. However, anecdotally, the best reported case series has been with surgical debulking followed by HIPEC chemotherapy In that instance I have recommended surgery with intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

Is this a reportable malignancy? If so, what is the best histology for the diagnosis?

CT a/p read by radiologist shows: "Bosniak 4 cystic lesion of right kidney." Follow-up MRI a month later reads "right kidney cystic lesion with enhancing mural nodule concerning for cystic renal cell carcinoma (RCC)." Urologist consult used the same wording of "Bosniak 4 cystic lesion" and "concerning for renal cell carcinoma." Treatment discussed but due to patient health status recommended repeat imaging. Repeat CT few months later reads: "cystic right renal lesion with enhancing nodule similar to most recent prior and suspicious for cystic RCC."

Though "suspicious for cystic RCC" per latest imaging is reportable, Bosniak 4 is "clearly malignancy, ~100% malignant" by definition, so is the case actually reportable with the first CT a/p date as date of diagnosis?

In the 2018 ICD-O-3 Update Table, undifferentiated high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma and undifferentiated high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma of bone (C40_) were both listed as a New Term for histology 8830/3. There was no site restriction for a diagnosis of undifferentiated high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma. Therefore, it appears the diagnosis could easily be applied to a soft tissue tumor. This histology is used by pathologists in our region for soft tissue tumors as well as bone tumors. However, in the ICD-O-3.2 Table an entry (or synonym) was not provided for a tumor outside the bone.

The ICD-O-3.2 Table only lists undifferentiated high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma of bone for site codes C40_ and C41_ as a synonym for histology 8830/3. This also is not listed in the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines. As a result, it is unclear whether a diagnosis of undifferentiated high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma of the soft tissue can be coded to 8830/3 and/or can be a synonym for the preferred term (8830/3, Malignant fibrous histiocytoma). Can a diagnosis of undifferentiated high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma of the soft tissue be coded to 8830/3, C49_ as it was per the 2018 ICD-O-3 Update Table?

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.