SEER Inquiry System - Search

10/2017 Bladder cancer diagnosed as invasive papillary urothelial bladder carcinoma (8130/3) (submucosal invasion).

12/2017 Surveillance scope and transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) finds “recurrent” bladder tumor, non-invasive papillary urothelial bladder carcinoma (8130/2) - same primary per 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology, Rule M6, (both papillary urothelial bladder carcinomas).

4/2018 Radical nephrectomy found focally invasive urothelial carcinoma (8120/3) in the renal pelvis.

Is this a new primary per 2018 and forward STR, Rule M6, because it was more than 60 days since the 12/2017 in situ bladder recurrence? Or would one compare the 2018 diagnosis to the original invasive bladder tumor in 10/2017, and continue on to Rule M11, which says to abstract a single primary for urothelial carcinomas in multiple organs, regardless of behavior?

SINQ #20120080 said to compare to the original diagnosis and disregard intervening recurrences, but that pertained to the 2007 MP/H rules. Does this still apply for 2018 forward? STR, Rule M10, Note 3, states when there is a recurrence within three years of diagnosis, the “clock” starts over. The time interval is calculated from the date of last recurrence. Comparing each recurrence for urothelial carcinomas using Rule M6 could result in over-counting them. Can the instructions on how to calculate the 60-day interval be clarified in Rule M6?

Example: Patient has a 2023 brain MRI described as having a “new dural based nodule, statistically meningioma, along the left distal tentorial incisura.” All subsequent chart information is related to patient’s unrelated diagnosis of multiple sclerosis only.

Is the terminology “statistically” reportable ambiguous terminology in this context?

Imaging identified a mass involving the hypothalamus and pituitary gland and excision of the mass proved “histiocytosis.” The case was extensively reviewed, and the physician notes this patient has a pituitary tumor that is a “non-Langerhans cell histiocytosis,” or a “non-LCH histiocytic neoplasm.”

There is no histology for histiocytosis (NOS) or non-Langerhans cell histiocytosis. However, this does appear to be a non-malignant histiocytic neoplasm. If this were a Langerhans cell histiocytic neoplasm in the CNS it would be reportable. Should this non-Langerhans cell histiocytic neoplasm also be accessioned as a reportable CNS neoplasm? If so, how is the histology coded?

The patient underwent a gross total resection of the 2005 glioblastoma multiforme (9440/3). The patient was subsequently diagnosed with a 2024 diagnosis of astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 4 (9445/3).

Should Rule M13 apply to the new 2024 diagnosis and a new primary be accessioned because astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 4 is listed on a different row than glioblastoma? It is unclear whether histology 9445 should be classified as being on a different row because it is also listed as a subtype/variant for glioblastoma in Table 3. Table 3 lists histology 9445 as both “Astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 4” and as “Glioblastoma IDH-mutant.”

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.

We know that physician TNM staging is not always accurate, and we also know that doctors sometimes use information in assigning their TNM which may not be available to registrars. Is it a discrepancy when the documentation in the chart is unclear or not definitive, yet the physician assigns a TNM that seems to incorporate that documentation? Or is a discrepancy an obvious conflict between chart documentation and the doctor’s staging – such as a mis-assignment of TNM category that doesn’t at all match with clear and complete medical record documentation, or the physician’s use of criteria that should be excluded from the TNM assignment per AJCC guidelines?

A real case example is a patient with breast carcinoma, imaging states 12 cm tumor with thickening of dermis, and thickening of morphologically suspicious internal mammary and level 1-2 axillary lymph nodes. Medical oncologist states locally advanced breast cancer with extensive changes involving skin thickening associated with the mass, at least stage IIIC based on imaging and exam findings, cT4 N3b. Only axillary nodes were sampled and found to be positive. Post-neoadjuvant therapy resection showed only focal DCIS. Per EOD guidelines, would the oncologist’s staging be a discrepancy with the chart documentation and therefore ignored, with EOD-Primary Tumor coded 200 for skin thickening, and EOD-Lymph Nodes 200 for involvement of axillary nodes only? Or would the doctor’s TNM be a clarification/confirmation of documentation terms that we otherwise would not code, with EOD-PT coded 400 for extensive skin involvement and EOD-LNs 600 for internal mammary + axillary nodes?

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)?

Patient was diagnosed March 2024 with high grade dysplasia of the gallbladder during excision for clinical history of acute cholecystitis and obstruction.

Per the STR, Table 10 for Gallbladder and Extrahepatic Bile Duct Histologies shows Biliary intraepithelial neoplasia, high grade as code 8148/2. High grade glandular intraepithelial neoplasia of the biliary tract is also code 8148/2.

Recent SINQ 20240021 (GI specific) indicates high grade dysplasia is reportable as high grade glandular intraepithelial neoplasia (8148/2) for stomach, small intestine, and esophagus. Does the same hold true for gallbladder? If so, then it appears there is a conflict between STR and Appendix E2.

However, using the logic of SINQ 20240021 for this site would appear to contradict Appendix E2 which indicates high grade dysplasia in sites other than stomach, intestine, and esophageal sites is not reportable.

If we can code high grade dysplasia of GI sites to 8148/2, should we accession high grade dysplasia of the gallbladder and other biliary sites in a similar manner? If so, then Appendix E needs to be modified.