SEER Inquiry System - Search

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?

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?

In the old 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology rules, Lung Equivalent Terms and Definitions section, oat cell carcinoma (8042) was listed as one of the obsolete terms that was no longer recognized for small cell carcinoma.  That note is not in the current 2018 Solid Tumor Manual lung chapter, and ICDO-3.2 lists oat cell carcinoma as the preferred term for code 8042/3.  Would rule H4, Note 2 apply -- only one histology present, if not listed in Table 3 use ICD-O and all updates, to code oat cell carcinoma as 8042/3?

In the September 2021 Urinary Sites Solid Tumor Rules update, the term configuration was removed from the “DO NOT CODE histology when described as” list. However, it was not added as a term that can be used to code the more specific histology for urinary tumors.

Can configuration be used to code the more specific histology 8130 (papillary urothelial carcinoma) when the diagnosis is urothelial carcinoma, tumor configuration: papillary?

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.

The left thyroid lobectomy/isthmusectomy returned a diagnosis of sclerosing mucoepidermoid carcinoma with eosinophina, 6.5 cm, replacing nearly the entire left lobe of the thyroid.

The patient has a completion thyroidectomy of the right lobe and returned the diagnosis of papillary thyroid carcinoma, 0.5 mm, in maximum dimension.

The endocrinologist describes it as "co-exsisting" and states the tumor is iodine non-avid.

The pathology report states this is a rare entity described in case reports and not incorporated into the WHO classification of tumors. A subsequent endocrinology note stated “papillary tumor, benign by path; tumor was not an adenoma; based on one Mayo study, the recurrence risk is low.”

In the WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th edition, for the uterine cervix squamous intraepithelial lesions, there is related terminology for high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion HSIL (CIN3) 8077/2 and it is severe squamous dysplasia; squamous cell in situ. However, in the online WHO Classification of Digestive System Tumors, 5th edition, there is no related terminology for esophageal high-grade squamous dysplasia, 8077/2. Can you collect cases of severe dysplasia the same as cases of high grade dysplasia?