SEER Inquiry System - Search

The FORDS Manual (pg. 22) states: The first course of treatment includes all methods of treatment recorded in the treatment plan and administered to the patient before disease progression or recurrence. The instructions in the FORDS Manual and clarification from multiple CAnswer Forum posts indicates the planned first course treatment stops following disease progression, even when the first course treatment plan is not altered or changed.

SEER, on the other hand, instructs registrars to do the opposite. The SEER Manual instructs registrars to code all completed treatment given as part of the initial first course treatment plan, even after disease progression, provided the treatment plan is not changed or altered. (See 2016 SEER Manual, Section VII First Course of Therapy, Treatment Timing, Rule 1 and Example 1.)

For consistency in data collection, shouldnt the standard setters use the same guidelines to define first course treatment? Given that the majority of cases are reported to SEER by registrars in CoC facilities, who may not be abstracting treatment modalities that occur after progression, the SEER expectation is likely not able to be performed consistently. Wont this difference in standard setter data collection expectations negatively impact the treatment data reflected on our files?

Total thyroidectomy Final Diagnosis: Papillary carcinoma, classical type, with papillary and follicular architecture.

The 2007 MP/H rules state that the term architecture is reserved for coding subtype of in situ primaries only. However, SINQ 20130165 appears to indicate this should be coded for invasive thyroid subtypes as well. Can you confirm the addition of the term architecture for determining an invasive histologic subtype for thyroid?

The MP/H Rules (Other Sites Terms and Definitions, Table 2) currently lists a separate mixed germ cell tumor code (9101) for germ cell tumors with choriocarcinoma plus teratoma, seminoma or embryonal carcinoma. Is this separate mixed germ cell tumor code still to be used now that all mixed germ cell tumors (9065 and 9085) have been collapsed into code 9085 for analysis per SINQs 20160056 and 20110013? The current WHO Classification for testis tumors does not list code 9101, but also collapses all seminomatous and nonseminomatous mixed germ cell tumors of more than one histologic type under code 9085.

The patient is diagnosed by bilateral mammograms suspicious for malignancy in both breasts. A biopsy is done on one breast and is positive. The physician states that he will not biopsy the contralateral breast, as the patient has consented to bilateral mastectomy. The patient receives neoadjuvant chemo, follow by bilateral mastectomies. Both breasts are negative for residual cancer, stated as a complete response. Based on "suspicious for malignancy" can we accession two primaries and assume bilateral complete response?

Pathology report: Left lower lobe lung, Tumor Size: Greatest dimension: 3.0 cm Additional dimensions: 2.5 x 2.0 cm; Tumor Focality: Unifocal; Histologic Type: Invasive adenocarcinoma Solid predominant with mucin production; Histologic Grade: G3: Poorly differentiated. Is the correct histology for this case 8230/3 (rule H5) or 8255/3 (rule H6)?

Patient was diagnosed with DCIS of the left breast in June 2014. The patient had a simple mastectomy with 2 axillary lymph nodes removed. The final diagnosis was intermediate to high grade ductal carcinoma in situ, predominantly micropapillary type, forming a 1.4 cm mass. No invasive carcinoma identified. Margins negative. In April 2017, the patient was found to have parietoccipital bone lesions, which were resected. The resulting diagnosis was metastatic carcinoma, morphologically consistent with breast primary " See Comment: The previous breast lesion is not available for review at the time of signout. However, the tumor is morphologically compatible with a breast primary.

SINQ 20110111 would not make this is new primary. However, it seems that rule M8 might apply. An invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days after diagnosis is a multiple primary. See Note 2: Abstract as multiple primaries even if the medical record/physician states it is recurrence or progression of disease.

Patient had a biopsy in April 2014; pathology was reported as non-small cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine phenotype, possible large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. The patient had five cycles of cisplatin/etoposide with no response. In May 2015, a re-biopsy at a referral institution reports poorly differentiated small cell carcinoma and states "feels that this could have been the histology all along and why patient has failed multi lines of chemo."