SEER Inquiry System - Search

Rule H4 states: Code 8723/3 (malignant melanoma, regressing) when the diagnosis is regressing melanoma. However, if the diagnosis was strictly regressing melanoma or malignant melanoma, regressing, the first rule that applies is Rule H1 because regressing melanoma is a single, specific histologic type and Rule H1 states: Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. Following the current rules, one would never arrive at Rule H4. Should the H Rules be reordered? Or should an example of when one would use Rule H4 be added to clarify when to use this rule?

Acinar predominant adenocarcinoma measures at least 12 mm and involves wedge biopsy margins, while the lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma measures 11 mm and does not involve the margins of that separate specimen. Pathologist also notes, “CT findings of diffuse coarse reticular nodular opacity, these findings may represent pneumonic type adenocarcinoma/diffuse pulmonary involvement or intrapulmonary metastasis.  Both of these scenarios have the corresponding stages of pT4 (if thought to be ipsilateral) or M1a (if thought to also involve the contralateral lobe).”

Patient declined any further treatment and transitioned to hospice before expiring less than 1 month after wedge biopsies.

It is unclear if Rule M6 would apply to these two specimens with different subtypes since this scenario is not specifically addressed in the M rule definitions.

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?

We were previously told that papillary microcarcinoma is coded to 8260 (papillary thyroid carcinoma) and not papillary microcarcinoma (8341). That is an area of confusion. 

For example:

-ultrasound of the right eye: consistent with a nevoma/melanoma; we could not find any indication that nevoma is a reportable term

-bladder biopsy pathology report:  severe urothelial dysplasia/carcinoma in situ (CIS)

As a central registry, we receive some limited information cases like this where there is no record of treatment or possibility to follow-back to physicians for clarification, so we want to make sure we are reporting them correctly.

There is an ICD-O histology code for follicular carcinoma, minimally invasive (8335/3) as well as follicular carcinoma, oxyphilic cell (8290/3). Per SINQ 20150045, the term oncocytic is synonymous with oxyphilic in this context.

The Multiple Primaries/Histology General Instructions and histology rules do not include the term “variant” as a term that can be used to code a further histologic subtype. The term “variant” can be used for the Other Sites (non-updated STR sites) when the ICD-O-3.2 (or ICD-O-3 for older cases) provides the term “variant” in the histology name.

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.

Patient has a remote history of a right thalamic mass status-post two resections; reported as malignant oligodendroglioma (pathology not received) and chemo/radiation therapy, who recently presented with persistent headaches. Imaging revealed a 3.4 cm heterogeneous lobulated right thalamic mass with coarse calcifications and a probable cystic component.

Pathologist indicates the histologic and immunophenotypic features of this neoplasm are that of relatively circumscribed neuroepithelial tumor without high grade features (mitotic activity, microvascular proliferation, necrosis). Molecularly this neoplasm is characterized by a PATZ1-EWSR1 fusion, which has recently been proposed to be a distinct neuroepithelial tumor entity with a broad histological spectrum.

Laterality is often not noted for these sella turcica meningiomas; therefore, Laterality is often coded as 9 (Unknown). Because the sella turcica appears to be a midline structure in the base of the skull, is Laterality code 5 (midline) more appropriate when additional information is unavailable?