SEER Inquiry System - Search

If we do not count the antibiotic regimen as cancer-directed treatment but this is the only treatment given and the lymphoma disappears, is it problematic to have a cancer status of "no disease" recorded in a patient that supposedly was not "treated"?

Lymphoma case diagnosed in 2021: The patient had first round of systemic therapy as documented in the treatment plan and a post-chemotherapy PET scan that showed residual disease. The patient then had a different combination of systemic therapy and still had some residual disease. The patient was given a third round of different combination of systemic therapy in preparation for stem cell transplant. According to the physician post-stem cell transplant note, the patient achieved complete remission.

Is the first course of therapy the first round of systemic therapy only or is it all the therapy given to achieve remission?  It seems like only the first round of systemic therapy is first course of therapy for both leukemia and lymphoma in the hematopoietic manual. I thought all treatment for all hematopoietic cases was first course until remission achieved or progression was evident.

According to this article, PRRT treatment lutetium Lu 177 dotatate was approved earlier this year by the United States Food and Drug Administration for adult use. PRRT is a nuclear medicine therapy that travels throughout the body looking for a certain receptor within neuroendocrine tumors. These include pancreatic and small neuroendocrine tumors in the gastrointestinal tract. Once absorbed into the tumor, the radioactive material starts to break down tumor cells, killing them. It is the first radioactive drug approved for the targeted treatment of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

(http://cinj.org/rutgers-cancer-institute-new-jersey-and-robert-wood-johnson-university-hospital-are-first-state ).

Is a physician’s statement of progressive disease adequate to determine disease progression in coding first vs. second course treatment? Can an increase in tumor burden (i.e., a change in overall stage) be used by the registrar to determine disease progression?

Often, determining disease progression is difficult as there are no guidelines in the SEER Manual related to this topic. It seems a physician’s statement of progressive disease should always be accepted. However, that statement is not always available. While it seems an increase in tumor size alone would not be “progressive disease” as tumors will continue to grow, can registrars use an increase in tumor burden to make this determination?

The instructions for coding first vs. second course treatment are clear when a treatment plan is changed, but determining whether there has been disease progression, recurrence, or treatment failure can be difficult without a physician’s assessment.

For example, a patient was diagnosed with a newly diagnosed resectable pancreatic cancer; the documented treatment plan was for upfront chemotherapy, followed by repeat staging, followed by pancreatectomy. The patient completed 3 cycles of FOLFIRINOX, but the physician noted that the CT scan shows progressive disease, and the plan was to start a new treatment regimen with Abraxane, Gemzar, and stereotactic body radiation (SBRT) (Cyberknife). The patient completed the additional chemotherapy, radiation, and proceeded to the initially planned surgery. The pathologist staged this as yp disease, but the surgery appears to be second course treatment, and we would not code the surgery, or collect the staging (yp staging) since the physician stated this was progressive disease. The classification as yp staging can be misleading, since the resection is technically after neoadjuvant treatment, but is not collected per our guidelines. In this case, is it correct to code first course treatment as FOLFIRINOX only?

Patient was diagnosed with Stage IV colon cancer (liver metstasiss) and started on Folfox with Avastin. The medical oncologist decided to continue maintenance treatment with Xeloda and Avastin.

Per Colon NCCN Guidelines Version 3.2019, interest in the use of maintenance therapy approach after first-line treatment of unresectable, metastatic colorectal cancer is growing. In general, this approach involves intensive first-line therapy, followed by less intensive therapy until progression in patients with good response to initial treatment.

Colon Therapy

5/1/18 Colonoscopy biopsy: mod diff colon adenoca, MMR proficient, BRAF wild type

5/5/18 Liver biopsy: mets from colon cancer

6/18/18 " 11/20/2018 Med Onc: started 12 cycles Chemo - Folfox (Fluorouracil, leucovorin, Oxaliplatin) with Avastin

11/28/18 CT Pelvis: continued improvement in the liver mets; no residual tumor involving colon; no new mas or adenopathy in the chest, abdomen or pelvis

12/02/18 Med Onc follow up: Pt had tremendous response to chemotherapy and Avastin, cancer is not curable. Is amenable to maintenance therapy with Xeloda and Avastin; also amenable to descending colectomy in the future

1/7/19 Med Onc: starting maintenance treatment Xeloda + Avastin.

in March, the patient with stage cT1c, Gleason grade 7, prostate cancer elected active surveillance. In April, the patient consented to treatment with Lupron. There was no evidence of disease progression. According to the rules on page 161 of the 2023 SEER manual, we think the answer is yes, but the reporting hospital states that this is second course therapy.

While SEER*Rx does indicate infliximab should be coded as biological response modifier (BRM)/Immunotherapy, the manufacturer website for this medication indicates it is given for: Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and plaque psoriasis. In addition, SEER*Rx does not indicate which primary sites this treatment may be given for. If it is indeed cancer directed treatment, can the typical primary sites be added for clarity?

Case example: Patient is diagnosed with colorectal cancer and also has an existing diagnosis of Crohn’s disease; received surgery and FOLFOX6, as well as infliximab. There was no statement of what disease the infliximab was given to treat.  

IMC-A12 (Cixutumumab) is listed as a BRM agent in SEER*Rx, but the Remarks section indicates it should be coded as Other Therapy until there is FDA approval. It is unclear if FDA approval was ever given for this agent. We are mainly seeing it given for prostate primaries.

The SEER Manual states that the Other Therapy data item identifies treatments given that cannot be classified as surgery, radiation, systemic therapy, or ancillary treatment; and the instructions for code 2, Other-Experimental, say to assign this for any experimental or newly developed treatment, such as a clinical trial, that differs greatly from proven types of cancer therapy.  Does this mean that only unclassifiable treatments should be coded in Other Therapy, even if given as part of a clinical trial? 

For example, if a patient is given a drug as part of a trial that is categorized in SEER*Rx as immunotherapy, should it be assigned both Immunotherapy (NAACCR #1410) code 1 and Other Therapy code 2, or only coded in Immunotherapy since it is classified as such?  How should a clinical trial drug be coded if it has a treatment classification in SEER*Rx, but the type of cancer being treated is not listed under the Primary Site or Remarks sections as being FDA approved?  A real case scenario is atezolizumab given for colon cancer as part of a trial; this drug's category is Immunotherapy in SEER*Rx but colon is not listed under Primary Sites or in the Remarks detailing FDA approvals.

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?