Reportability/Behavior Code--Melanoma: If a dermatologist states a "proliferation of atypical melanocytes confined to epidermis" is melanoma in situ, is it reportable to SEER?
For this case only, it is reportable to SEER because the physician states that it is "melanoma in situ."
The phrase "proliferation of atypical melanocytes confined to epidermis" alone is not reportable to SEER. This phrase means that there are a number of (proliferation) pigmented cells (melanocytes) not showing the normal cell structure (atypical).
Reportability/Behavior--Kidney: Is a 2022 diagnosis of “clear cell renal cell papillary tumor” on nephrectomy reportable? See Discussion.
We are aware that the WHO 4th edition for urinary tumors has changed the behavior of “clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma” to /1 but registries are to continue collecting as /3.
While the diagnosis in our case is stated as “tumor” it does seem like the pathologist may be using the new WHO terminology of “tumor” rather than “carcinoma,” so we are not sure if behavior is /3 or /1.
Report clear cell renal cell papillary tumor (CCRCPT), formerly classified as clear cell renal cell papillary carcinoma, and assign code 8323/3 until this new term and code (8323/1) have been adopted by standard setters.
The Kidney Solid Tumor Rules advise to code clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma as 8323/3. WHO Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs, 4th ed., has reclassified this histology as a /1. This change has not yet been implemented and it remains reportable.
WHO Classification of Urinary and Male Genital Tumors, 5th ed., has since reclassified clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma as CCRCPT (8323/1). The name change was made because there have been no reports of metastatic events for this indolent tumor. The term clear cell renal cell papillary carcinoma is no longer recommended.
Reportability/Behavior--Ovary: Is adult granulosa cell tumor a reportable malignant tumor if the primary ovarian tumor ruptured intraoperatively, the peritoneum was contaminated, and the patient underwent adjuvant treatment with chemotherapy given the increased risk of recurrence due to intraoperative tumor spill? See Discussion.
Per SINQ 20130176 and 20140034, adult granulosa cell tumors of the ovary are reportable malignant tumors when there are peritoneal implants or metastases. The SINQ responses describe how these adult granulosa cell tumors are different from low malignant potential (LMP) epithelial ovarian tumors. Would these SINQ scenarios apply to a case with intraoperative tumor rupture that resulted in peritoneal tumor?
In this case, the pathologist indicated these excised peritoneal specimens were favored to be intraoperative contamination with adult granulosa cell tumor. However, the oncologist went on to treat this patient as high risk with chemotherapy. The oncologist only described one of the pelvic peritoneal implants as possibly contamination due to the rupture. The oncologist never indicated the tumors were definitely peritoneal implants. Should the behavior of this tumor be /1 because the peritoneal tumor appears to be contamination, or /3 because the oncologist treated this patient as high risk?
If the "implants" were due to intraoperative contamination and were not present prior to surgery, do not interpret them as indicative of malignancy. The behavior of this tumor is /1.
Reportability/Behavior--Ovary: Is ovarian mucinous
borderline tumor with foci of multifocal intraepithelial carcinoma reportable?
Report ovarian mucinous borderline tumor with foci of
multifocal intraepithelial carcinoma. The foci of intraepithelial carcinoma
makes this reportable. See the list of synonyms for in situ in the SEER Manual,
Behavior Code data item.
Reportability/Behavior--Paraganglia: Is a 2021+ diagnosis of paraganglioma reportable if the grading of adrenal pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (GAPP) score falls outside the stated requirements for malignancy? See Discussion.
Patient was diagnosed with a retroperitoneal paraganglioma on April 2021 mass resection. Final diagnosis included the comment: Based on the modified grading of adrenal pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (GAPP), the GAPP score is 1. Scores greater than or equal to 3 are malignant.
We are aware that paraganglioma is classified as malignant for cases diagnosed in 2021+, however it is unclear how the pathologist's interpretation of the GAPP score may affect the behavior of this case.
Report retroperitoneal paraganglioma based on ICD-O-3.2 histology/behavior that lists paraganglioma, NOS as 8680/3 for cases diagnosed 2021 and forward. While GAPP is a predictor of metastatic potential, it does not factor into behavior, thus reportability.
Reportability/Behavior--Skin: Is an "atypical fibroxanthoma (superficial malignant fibrous histiocytoma)" with an ICDO-3 histology code of 8830 reportable with a behavior code of 3 or is it nonreportable with a behavior code of 1?
Yes, "atypical fibroxanthoma (superficial malignant fibrous histiocytoma)" is reportable. The information in parentheses provides more detail and confirms a reportable malignancy.
Reportability/Behavior--Small intestine: Is a carcinoid tumor, described as benign, reportable? See Discussion.
A segmental resection pathology report states "benign mucosal endocrine proliferation consistent with a 0.3 cm duodenal carcinoid tumor." The diagnosis comment further states, "the separate small endocrine lesion is histologically benign, consistent with a 3 mm carcinoid tumor." This seems to be an example of a description of a microcarcinoid tumor referenced in SINQ 20160011. However, in this new case the pathologist specifically states the tumor is benign.
The WHO definition of microcarcinoid indicates this is a precursor lesion, which seems to indicate it is not malignant. However, SEER's previous answer stated we should report these tumors because the ICD-O-3 definition of carcinoid is 8240/3. Do you think that the mention of the term "benign" in the pathology report is actually related to the size of this lesion? Is the reference to benign mucosal endocrine proliferation referring to the WHO classification (making the case reportable as stated in SINQ 20160011), or is this a situation in which we should apply the Matrix Rule and the case is nonreportable?
This carcinoid tumor, described as benign, is not reportable. According to our expert pathologist consultant, this case is not reportable because the pathologist uses "benign" to describe the mucosal endocrine proliferation and based on that, the neuroendocrine cell proliferation is hyperplasia/benign - not reportable.
Reportability/Behavior--Thymus: Are "lymphocyte predominant thymoma with microscopic capsule invasion" and "Polygonal epithelial cell thymoma with invasion of the lung and pericardial fat" reportable?
Please see SINQ 20110038 for the most recent information on reporting thymoma.
Reportability/Behavior: Is a "minimally invasive thymoma" a reportable malignancy if the pathology report does not specifically state it is malignant? See Discussion.
For example, are Types A, B1, B2 and B3 reportable if the pathology report does not state the tumor is a "Malignant Thymoma"?
For cases diagnosed prior to 2021
According to our expert pathologist consultant, code using the terms in the pathology report. Do not try to second guess the pathologist.
Thymomas are /1 and not reportable unless the pathologist states "malignant". This includes A, AB, B1, B2, and B3. Any one of these types of tumors may exhibit invasion but do not code /3 based only on invasion.
Code thymoma as /3 if specifically designated "malignant" by the pathologist.
Thymic carcinoma and any of its subtypes are malignant, /3.
Reportability/Behavior: Is HGSIL (high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion) of the vulva or vagina reportable and is it a synonym for histology code 8077/2 [squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III]?
For cases diagnosed 2018 and later
HGSIL of the vulva or vagina is reportable. HGSIL is a synonym for squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III.
An official website of the United States government
Home