SEER Inquiry System - Search

The CT findings identified a right kidney rim-enhancing centrally cystic lesion most suggestive of clear cell renal cell carcinoma measuring 3.2 cm.  The radiologist’s impression was “concerning for renal cell carcinoma.” The subsequent urologist’s consult states the right kidney lesion has a 75% chance of malignancy. The urologist discussed active surveillance, surgery, and ablation, and after discussion with the patient the plan was for active surveillance.

No further information is available, and we are unable to follow up with the physician regarding this case.

Should a lesion with a high percentage chance of malignancy (e.g., 75% chance) be considered a lesion “most likely” to be malignant?

The patient had a 2023 endometrial polypectomy and curettage with final diagnosis of “at least serous intraepithelial neoplasia arising in association with an endometrial polyp.” Diagnosis comment states, “There are multiple tissue fragments with highly atypical glandular lining consistent with a high-grade serous neoplasm. There are focal areas which are suspicious, but not conclusive, for stromal invasion.” Subsequent hysterectomy and BSO showed no residual carcinoma.

According to previous SINQ 20210043, serous tubal intraepithelial neoplasm (STIN) is reportable when stated to be high grade. Does the same logic apply to a similar neoplasm in the endometrium and/or endometrial polyp?

In this case, the surgeon ruptured the ovarian tumor to drain it prior to removal causing the surgical spill. Regional lymph nodes are negative and there is no metastasis. The capsule was then noted as ruptured on pathology.

Does it matter if the surgeon was the one who ruptured the capsule? Would the stage change if the surgeon intentionally ruptured the capsule to drain the tumor intraoperatively causing some surgical spill? The scenarios of an intentional and not intentional rupture are not specified in SEER Summary Stage 2018.

Example: Patient had a 2023 nasopharyngeal mass biopsy showing “Nasopharyngeal non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma, undifferentiated type.” 

The Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules (STRs) do not include an H Rule that instructs us how to code histology when there are two subtypes/variants present for a head and neck primary, nor does the STR define undifferentiated carcinoma as a subtype/variant for 8072.

The WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors states non-keratinizing nasopharyngeal carcinoma (non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is the most common subtype for nasopharyngeal ca, but that non-keratinizing can be subdivided into undifferentiated and differentiated subtypes.

Should histology be 8020 (undifferentiated carcinoma) or 8072 (non-keratinizing SCC)?

For example, a chest computed tomography showed multiple subsolid and ground glass pulmonary nodules measuring up to 6 mm; findings favored to reflect adenocarcinoma spectrum lesions.  A literature search seems to indicate that adenocarcinoma spectrum lesions include atypical adenomatous hyperplasia through invasive adenocarcinomas.

The accuracy rate for SEER Workshop Case 04 (a duodenal invasive adenocarcinoma in an adenomatous polyp) was very low because Rule H13 was either being ignored or users were stopping at Rule H12 to code adenocarcinoma.

If the presence of an NOS histology in a polyp is still clinically relevant for the Other Sites module, this information will be missed due to the order of the H Rules, or the lack of clarification in Rule H12.

If a change is made to Rule H12 (Single Tumor: Invasive Only module), then changes must also be made to the Single Tumor: In Situ Only module and the Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary module because both these modules include the same polyp coding H Rule.

The SEER Manual seems to give somewhat conflicting instructions for clinical trial therapies under the Neoadjuvant Therapy data item. One section states that limited systemic therapy may occur in clinical trials to impact the biology of a cancer, but is not a full course of neoadjuvant therapy with the intent to impact extent of surgical resection or other outcomes (organ preservation, function or quality of life); do not code as neoadjuvant therapy for the purposes of this data item. Then another section states for purposes of this data item, the criteria for neoadjuvant therapy include that treatment must follow recommended guidelines for the type and duration of treatment for that particular cancer site and/or histology, and that neoadjuvant therapy may be given as part of a clinical trial.

For example, a patient was diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast, 6 cm in size; treatment planning conference recommended neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The patient elected to participate in a clinical trial and was assigned to a group given the antibody drug conjugate datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) plus durvalumab for 12 weeks. There was no physician documentation of intent or expected outcomes, nor yC staging or statement of clinical response. Post-therapy imaging showed no residual mass, and post-therapy mastectomy path report showed only residual ductal carcinoma in situ, stating "Treatment Effect (after neoadjuvant): Residual Cancer Burden - pCR, In the breast - complete response."  The medical oncologist stated post-therapy stage was ypTis ypN0 cM0.

The trial drugs this patient were given do not appear to be approved or standard neoadjuvant/pre-operative drugs in SEER*Rx or NCCN guidelines for this type of cancer; however, the duration of treatment was fairly substantial, and although we don't have clear documentation from physicians as recommended in the SEER manual (which is usually not stated, in our experience), it seems like they may be considering it as neoadjuvant therapy. How should the Neoadjuvant Therapy data item be coded for cases like this? What is the best way to differentiate between clinical trial therapies that are "limited systemic exposure" (code 3) versus true neoadjuvant therapy (code 1)?