Reportablility--Breast: Is lobular neoplasia reportable as lobular carcinoma in situ? See Discussion.
According to College of American Pathologists (CAP), lobular neoplasia is also known as lobular carcinoma in situ. In a previous SEER question 20041089, it was stated that they were not the same and should not be reported unless it was a Grade 3. I assume this has changed and we are to report lobular neoplasia as lobular carcinoma in situ, is this correct?
For cases diagnosed 2021 or later
Lobular neoplasia (LN II and LN III) and lobular intraepithelial neoplasia (LIN II and LIN III) are reportable and coded 8520/2.
Reportability: What American College of Radiology Reporting and Data Systems (RADS) can be used to determine reportability? See Discussion.
LI-RADS (liver), PI-RADS (prostate), and TI-RADS (thyroid) can be used to determine reportability. BI-RADS (breast) and Lung-RADS cannot be used to determine reportability. Can these systems below to determine reportability?
C-RADS (from CT colonography)
NI-RADS (head & neck)
O-RADS (ovarian-adnexal)
The following cancer cases are reportable unless there is information to the contrary.
–Liver cases with an LI-RADS category LR-4 (reportable since 2021) or LR-5 (reportable since 2016)
–Prostate cases with a PI-RADS category 4 or 5 (reportable since 2017)
The following are not reportable without additional information.
Reportability: When a hospital pathologist sends the slides from an original biopsy to two or more outside reviewers and the reviewers differ on whether or not the case is reportable, is the case SEER reportable? Does the decision to treat the patient have any bearing on whether the case would be reportable?
Typically, the final diagnosis of the reviewing pathologist is the one used to determine whether the case is SEER reportable. If two or more reviewing pathologists disagree as to whether the case should be reportable, determine reportability based on the following priority order:
1) If the patient is treated for cancer, the case is reportable.
2) If the patient is not treated for cancer, use the amended diagnosis on the original pathology report if the hospital pathologist used the reviewing pathologists' opinions in establishing his new diagnosis.
3) If there is not an amended diagnosis for the original hospital pathology report, use the clinician's opinion regarding what the diagnosis is to determine whether the case is reportable.
Reportability: Should a benign gangliocytic paraganglioma [8683/0] be a reportable (malignant) tumor based on the presence of lymph node metastases? See Discussion.
"Resection, periampullary duodenum: Gangliocytic paraganglioma, with metastasis to one large periduodunal lymph node. Six other small lymph nodes negative. COMMENT: The primary tumor in the duodenum is made up mainly endocrine cell component. This component appears to have metastasized to a periduodenal lymph node."
This neoplasm is reportable because it is malignant as proven by the lymph node metastases. Code the behavior as malignant (/3) when there are lymph node metastases.
VIN II-III is reportable based on ICD-O-3.2 which lists squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II as 8077/2 making it reportable. Also see SINQ 20120094.
Reportability: Is penile intraepithelial neoplasia, differentiated type, reportable? See discussion.
Foreskin circumcision shows: Penile intraepithelial neoplasia, differentiated type (differentiated PeIN). If reportable, how would the histology and behavior be coded? Is this behavior /2?
For cases diagnosed 2018 and later
Differentiated penile intraepithelial neoplasia (differentiated PeIN), is reportable (8071/2).
Please note: Penile intraepithelial neoplasia, grade 3 (PeIN 3) is also reportable to SEER (C600-C609, 8077/2).
Reportability: Is a tumor reported as "neoplasm" or "neoplasia" per the pathology report, which is subsequently clinically referred to as "carcinoma" reportable? See Discussion.
Example 1: Lung-Wedge resection and subsequent left lower lobe lobectomy showed papillary epithelial neoplasia. Tumor board and subsequent reports state "nonsmall cell carcinoma of lung."
Example 2: Kidney-Partial nephrectomy showed epithelial neoplasm, clear cells with low grade cytology. Subsequent urology clinic notes state that path revealed clear cell renal carcinoma.
2004 SEER manual states that "cases clinically diagnosed are reportable. If the physician treats a patient for cancer in spite of the negative biopsy, accession the case." Do we also accession the case if primary site has been resected? Would diagnostic confirmation be coded 8 (clinical diagnosis only)?
Accession the case and code Diagnostic Confirmation as 8 [clinical diagnosis only]. Accession a case with negative pathology when the clinician is aware of the negative pathology and continues to refer to the case as malignant.
Reportability: Is a tumor reportable if the pathology report indicates a non-reportable diagnosis at the time the specimen is removed but subsequent clinical statements state the patient had a reportable tumor? See Discussion.
The 2007 SEER Manual (page 3) states that cases diagnosed clinically are reportable. Exception 2 states if enough time has passed that it is reasonable to assume the physician has seen the negative pathology report, but the clinician continues to call this a reportable disease, accession the case.
SEER reporting guidelines state that severe dysplasia is not reportable, however, many clinicians regard it to be equivalent to carcinoma in situ.
Example 1: In 09-2007 the pathology report for excisional biopsy of right floor of mouth states the final diagnosis is severe dysplasia. At the time, the case is not accessioned based on non-reportable pathology. Patient is subsequently admitted in 3-09. According to the clinical history the patient was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma in 2007 and treated with laser. Is this reportable? If yes, how is behavior to be coded? How is "Ambiguous Terminology at Diagnosis" to be coded?
Example 2: In 2-08, the pathology report for a punch biopsy of a skin lesion states the final diagnosis is atypical melanocytic hyperplasia. In 3-08, patient is admitted for re-excision. The clinical diagnosis states re-excision being done for melanoma in situ.
Reference: SINQ 20061123
A tumor that is non-reportable based on the pathology report diagnosis should not be accessioned if later clinician statements mistakenly refer to it as a reportable tumor. The exception in the 2007 SEER manual on page 3 is intended to allow the registrar to accession a case when the clinician actually disagrees with the pathology report and clinically diagnoses a reportable tumor.
Reportability: Is a tubular adenoma reportable if the final diagnosis is "high grade atypia" and the diagnosis comment is "atypia limited to muscularis mucosa areas of pseudostratification [formerly qualifying for carcinoma in situ]"?
This case is not reportable.
The pathologist would need to include "carcinoma in situ" as part of the final diagnosis in order for this case to be reportable.
An official website of the United States government
Home