SEER Inquiry System - Search

The physician stated the prior LUL adenosquamous carcinoma was PD-L1 negative and the LUL squamous cell carcinoma is PD-L1 positive and is calling it a new primary.

5/22-7/3/19 6000x30 IMRT Photons LUL lung Chemo refused Not a Surg candidate

10/01/2019 CT Chest: IMP: In comparison to CT chest 03/06/2019 and PET/CT 03/21/2019, left lingular mass has mildly decreased in size. Left apical anterior and posterior lung lesions more anterior lesion appears slightly increased in size, the other slight decreased in size, with adjacent areas of atelectasis and scarring.

06/23/2020 CT Chest: MP: In comparison to CT chest 10/1/2019, left lingular mass has increased in size concerning for increasing tumor with adjacent thicker focal pleural thickening involving the chest wall, concerning for possible chest wall invasion. Left apical anterior and posterior lung lesions appears more solid in appearance, representing known adeno CA, given that the appearance has changed, is concerning for residual tumor.

07/06/2020 PET: Hypermetabolic lingular mass and peripheral nodularity has increased in size and FDG avidity on the prior PET/CT. Left apical nodular opacity is difficult to separate from fairly uniform mild left apical pleural hypermetabolism which may be treatment related and/or neoplastic.

Scenario: Patient had a transurethral resection of the prostate on 8-29-19, positive for basal cell carcinoma with focal squamous differentiation involving approximately 50% of tissue (determined not to be mets by consult). On 11-14-19, the patient had a prostatectomy positive for residual basal cell carcinoma and a small focus of infiltrating prostatic adenocarcinoma. According to AJCC, 8th edition, page 724, basal cell carcinoma of the prostate is 8147/3 and we ignored the small focus of adenocarcinoma. The above scenario was reported as two primaries (8090/3 and 8140/3), but we are thinking it is one.

Patient was diagnosed with low-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2011, later classified as hairy cell leukemia-variant.

Right cervical node biopsy in 2020 proved HCL-v and a subsequent 2021 right tongue base biopsy showed DLBCL. The tongue base biopsy path includes the comment, patient has history of HCL-v, but the morphology and flow cytology features are different from the patient's previous right cervical node biopsy. This DLBCL likely represents a second de novo lymphoma, but cannot exclude an unusual transformation of the prior HCL-v.

Per Heme Rule M7, abstract a single primary when a more specific histology is diagnosed after an NOS if the Heme DB confirms the same primary. The histology code for HCL-v, 9591/3 is a non-specific code, but it seems like a specific histology. The Heme Calculator does say 9591 and 9680 are the same primary, but we are unsure if that is correct for this case of HCL-v followed by DLBCL.

Example: The neoadjuvant therapy was started, the patient progressed, the treatment plan was altered, and a new course of systemic therapy was started; surgery was cancelled.

01/25/21 Bile duct brushing: Malignant cells present, adenocarcinoma

01/26/21 Surgical oncology consult: Currently unresectable; recommend neoadjuvant chemo

02/22/21-3/29/21 Neoadjuvant Gemzar & Abraxane, two cycles, discontinued due to disease progression

04/17/21 Surgical oncology re-eval: CT positive for disease progression, need to change Rx

04/26/21 Second change of treatment due to progression: Irinotecan, Oxaliplatin, and 5FU

07/16/21 Surgical oncology re-eval: Unresectable, advise 4-6 months of chemo followed by radiation

Patient was diagnosed with lambda myeloma based on the M spike found on serum protein electrophoresis. A bone marrow biopsy was performed, but it was an insufficient sample.

SPEP is not listed in the Hematopoietic Database as a lab test that can be used as a definitive diagnostic method. Since the physician did base the diagnosis on the SPEP result, would it be appropriate to assign code 5 (Positive laboratory test/marker study) since there was no histological confirmation?

Under code 5, the Hematopoietic Manual states: Laboratory tests are listed under Definitive Diagnostic Methods in the Hematopoietic Database.

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.

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?

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.