SEER Inquiry System - Search

Our pathologists have starting to use a new prostate cancer grading system that was adopted by WHO in 2016. The new grading scheme correlates with the prior Gleason grading scheme as follows:

Grade Group 1 = Gleason score 6 or less

Grade Group 2 = Gleason score 3+4=7

Grade Group 3 = Gleason score 4+3 = 7

Grade Group 4 = Gleason score 8

Grade Group 5 = Gleason score 9-10

Our pathologists are no longer dictating the Gleason Primary and Secondary Pattern values nor the Gleason's Score. Reverse correlation from the new grade groups to the required patterns and score are difficult with Grade Groups 2 and 3 needing to be distinguished from one another and Grade Group 5 including two unique scores.

The prostate-related fields include:

Collaborative Site Specific Factor 7: Gleason's Primary Pattern and Secondary Pattern Values on Needle Core Biopsy/TURP

Collaborative Site Specific Factor 8: Gleason's Score On Needle Core Biopsy/TURP

Collaborative Site Specific Factor 9: Gleason's Primary Pattern and Secondary Pattern Values on Prostatectomy/Autopsy

Collaborative Site Specific Factor 10: Gleason's Score on Prostatectomy/Autopsy

There is a discrepancy in regional lymph nodes for lung between SEER and AJCC. Supraclavicular lymph nodes/cervical lymph nodes are distant for SEER but regional for AJCC. For SEER states, when there is an FNA or biopsy of a supraclavicular lymph node performed and it is positive for a lung primary and no other lymph nodes are examined, do you code 95 in Regional Nodes Positive/Regional Nodes Examined and code "1" for Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery or do you not count the FNA/biopsy of the supraclavicular lymph node since it is distant?

The pathologist noted this was a challenging brain neoplasm that did not easily fit into a specific WHO diagnostic classification. Multiple differential diagnoses were given including pilomyxoid astrocytoma, ganglioglioma and dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumor (DNET), but there were no definitive features characteristic of any of these tumors. In the Comment section following the Final Diagnosis, it further states: "In summary, the tumor appears to be a difficult to classify non-infiltrating glial/glioneuronal neoplasm without definitive high-grade features."

At the central registry, we have accessioned this scenario as three primaries per Multiple Primaries/Histology (MP/H) Rule M10 (diagnosed more than 1 year apart), as the patient was stated to be disease free between each occurrence. However, the diagnosing/treating facility is not reporting these cases due to clinical statements of recurrent disease.

This is an example of a case type identified on casefinding audits conducted by our central registry in which we have learned SEER's expectation of MP/H rule application does not match hospital reporting. Can the 2018 version of the MP/H rules more clearly address how this type of clinically recurrent (multiple times) case should be handled?

Patient has an April 2009 biopsy proven diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma with a single liver mass in segment 4 that was treated with TACE and systemic chemotherapy. The treated lesion was stated to be stable in subsequent scans performed between 2010 and late 2015.

December 2015 imaging identified a new mass in the left hepatic lobe consistent with cholangiocarcinoma. Is the 2015 tumor a new primary?

In auditing files for expected (but not received) abstracts due from facilities, we've observed these types of cases not being consistently reported as multiple primaries.

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?

The patient had a mediastinal mass biopsy showing fibrosclerotic tissue with patchy lymphohistiocytic foci and scattered plasma cells, followed by a retroperitoneal mass biopsy showing fibrohistiocytic infiltrate. Erdheim-Chester disease is not reportable per the Heme Database. However, the physician specifically states this is a malignant disorder.

CT-guided liver biopsy, diagnosis: Metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma. Diagnosis Comment: Cytology of the tumor appears to be low to intermediate grade.

Would this case be coded as an atypical carcinoid tumor (8249/3) based on SINQ 20170033 and the statement of intermediate grade; or should this be 8240/3 (neuroendocrine tumor) per SINQ 20160023 because it is a metastatic site? More clarification is needed on when to code 8249/3 or 8240/3 for a neuroendocrine carcinoma or neoplasm seen in a metastatic specimen only when there is specified grade.