SEER Inquiry System - Search

Starting for cases diagnosed in 2024, the SPCSM manual no longer requires the data items for clinical and pathologic tumor size.  Instead, it appears to align with the CoC data item of Tumor Size Summary.  The two manuals contradict each other when it comes to coding tumor size summary for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) treated cancers.  

STORE states: "If neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery, do not record the size from the pathologic specimen. Code the largest size of the tumor prior to neoadjuvant treatment; if unknown code size as 999."  

2024 SPCSM states "If neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery, do not record the size from the pathologic specimen. Code the largest size of the tumor prior to neoadjuvant treatment; if unknown code size as 999." It continues to state     

 12. Assign code 000 when…. (a) no residual tumor is found…(i) Neoadjuvant therapy has been administered and the resection shows no residual tumor &

14. Assign code 999 when...(d) Neoadjuvant therapy has been administered and resection was performed. Do not use a post-neoadjuvant size to code pathologic tumor size; however, you may use the clinical tumor size if available

It seems that we will lose the value of the tumor size summary if we code 000 when NAC is administered and there is no residual disease. 

Example: Patient has a 90 mm triple positive breast tumor and is treated with neoadjuvant TCHP (docetaxel/carboplatin/ trastuzumab/pertuzumab). After completing neoadjuvant therapy, the patient has a mastectomy with no residual disease noted on the final pathology report. 

Using the 2024 SPCSM instructions, code 000 for Tumor Size Summary instead of 090 for the clinical tumor size of 90 mm tumor noted before NAC was administered. This has the potential to affect data analysis, research, and clinical trial accrual.

In this case, the surgeon ruptured the ovarian tumor to drain it prior to removal causing the surgical spill. Regional lymph nodes are negative and there is no metastasis. The capsule was then noted as ruptured on pathology.

Does it matter if the surgeon was the one who ruptured the capsule? Would the stage change if the surgeon intentionally ruptured the capsule to drain the tumor intraoperatively causing some surgical spill? The scenarios of an intentional and not intentional rupture are not specified in SEER Summary Stage 2018.

Based on the Solid Tumor Rules, we would make this two since it is over one year. According to a previous SINQ question 20110046, we are to code this as one primary. We see patients come back with multiple carcinoid tumors over the years and would like clarification.

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?

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.

Patient was diagnosed on imaging with enhancement along the right optic nerve intraorbital segment, displacing the optic nerve, most consistent with optic nerve sheath meningioma.

Extracranial meningiomas are rare, however SINQ 20230052 does contain an exception for reportability in a different head and neck site because it is not an intracranial location.

It is unclear if this portion of the meninges surrounding the intraorbital optic nerve is still “intracranial” and thus reportable.

Patient was diagnosed with essential thrombocytosis 9962/1 or 3 in 1998 (depending if ET was reportable in 1998), treated with Hydrea.

11-17-2022 Blood smear: CALR + myeloproliferative neoplasm, Most Consistent with Primary Myelofibrosis 9961/3 (Noted CALR and ASXL1 mutations).

The following abstractor note from 9661/3 is confusing: A diagnosis of "post essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis" is a progression of essential thrombocythemia and would be the same primary.

The patient underwent a gross total resection of the 2005 glioblastoma multiforme (9440/3). The patient was subsequently diagnosed with a 2024 diagnosis of astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 4 (9445/3).

Should Rule M13 apply to the new 2024 diagnosis and a new primary be accessioned because astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 4 is listed on a different row than glioblastoma? It is unclear whether histology 9445 should be classified as being on a different row because it is also listed as a subtype/variant for glioblastoma in Table 3. Table 3 lists histology 9445 as both “Astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 4” and as “Glioblastoma IDH-mutant.”

10/2017 Bladder cancer diagnosed as invasive papillary urothelial bladder carcinoma (8130/3) (submucosal invasion).

12/2017 Surveillance scope and transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) finds “recurrent” bladder tumor, non-invasive papillary urothelial bladder carcinoma (8130/2) - same primary per 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology, Rule M6, (both papillary urothelial bladder carcinomas).

4/2018 Radical nephrectomy found focally invasive urothelial carcinoma (8120/3) in the renal pelvis.

Is this a new primary per 2018 and forward STR, Rule M6, because it was more than 60 days since the 12/2017 in situ bladder recurrence? Or would one compare the 2018 diagnosis to the original invasive bladder tumor in 10/2017, and continue on to Rule M11, which says to abstract a single primary for urothelial carcinomas in multiple organs, regardless of behavior?

SINQ #20120080 said to compare to the original diagnosis and disregard intervening recurrences, but that pertained to the 2007 MP/H rules. Does this still apply for 2018 forward? STR, Rule M10, Note 3, states when there is a recurrence within three years of diagnosis, the “clock” starts over. The time interval is calculated from the date of last recurrence. Comparing each recurrence for urothelial carcinomas using Rule M6 could result in over-counting them. Can the instructions on how to calculate the 60-day interval be clarified in Rule M6?

SINQ #20170064 states this should be coded as neuroendocrine carcinoma for rectum, but that may not apply for a 2018+ lung case. The Solid Tumor Manual lists "neuroendocrine tumor, grade 3" as 8249 in the Lung module, Table 3, but our pathology report does not specify grade 3 and we are unsure if that would be equivalent to "high grade" in this case. We were unable to find this exact term in the Solid Tumor Manual or the ICD-O-3.2 update documents.