SEER Inquiry System - Search

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.

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.

A 17 year old exchange student was brought into the hospital with appendicitis.  The patient had an appendectomy; there was no follow up treatment.  5/27/2006 pathology report of vermiform appendix:  Adenocarcinoid appendix <5 mm tumor limited to appendix.

The patient has no record in Lexis Nexus and no social security number.  The address is a post office box; additionally, the patient’s birthplace is Switzerland and is lost to follow up.

Lutathera is a radioconjugate consisting of the tyrosine-containing somatostatin analog Tyr3-octreotate (TATE) conjugated with the bifunctional, macrocyclic chelating agent tetra-azacyclododecanetetra-acetic acid (DOTA) and radiolabeled with the beta-emitting radioisotope lutetium Lu 177 with potential antineoplastic activities.

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?

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.

A conjunctival biopsy final diagnosis is squamous mucosa with moderate to high grade dysplasia. The diagnosis comment states that immunostains were performed and confirm squamous histology. This seems to imply a high grade squamous dysplasia, rather than a non-reportable high grade dysplasia.  Does this case meet the criteria for reportable high grade squamous dysplasia?

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.

Patient has a diagnosis of myeloid sarcoma presenting as multiple erythematous papules and nodules on back, chest, right arm & shoulder. Oncologist did not mention any evidence or suspicion of an associated AML diagnosis.

HemeRetic schema EOD Primary Tumor Note 1 states that myeloid sarcoma can be coded as localized (code 100) or systemic (code 700). It is not clear what would qualify as systemic disease for myeloid sarcoma.