Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20170080 | Reportability/Breast: Is lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) reportable? The eighth edition, American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual does not stage LCIS. |
Yes, LCIS is reportable. Staging does not determine reportability. Follow the reportability requirements of your state and national standard setter. SEER reportability requirements are found in the SEER manual starting on page 5, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2016/SPCSM_2016_maindoc.pdf |
2017 | |
|
|
20071041 | Reportability/Chemotherapy--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is pyridoxine-responsive sideroblastic anemia (SA) reportable and is pyridoxine coded as chemotherapy for SA and refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts (RARS)? See Discussion. |
Patient has refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts on bone marrow path. The physician mentions it might be due to pyridoxine deficiency. Per the SEER*Rx, pyridoxine (aka Vitamin B6) is not coded as treatment. What causes RARS and SA? Is pyridoxine treatment for either disease process? Or is the pyridoxine just treating one aspect of the anemia? The patient has no other treatment but this. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Sideroblastic anemia (SA) is not reportable. SA is not the same as refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts (RARS). Therefore, do not code pyridoxine administered for SA as therapy. If the patient had RARS that "might be due to pyridoxine deficiency," the replacement pyridoxine would not be coded as chemotherapy because it does not control or kill malignant cells. If the pyridoxine was successful in alleviating the refractory anemia, the RARS would be reversible and would not meet the criteria for a reportable blood disease; i.e. irreversible, clonal. For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ. |
2007 |
|
|
20081119 | Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Liver: Does the final diagnosis of a scan have higher priority than the findings in the discussion in the body of the report? See Discussion. |
A patient with liver cancer becomes transplant eligible when the tumor is 2 cm in size. Frequently, liver tumors will be watched (no biopsy) for months until they meet the 2 cm size criteria. In the meantime, multiple scans will describe the tumor using variations of ambiguous terms that drift in and out of reportablility. One day the tumor is labeled "presumed hepatocellular carcinoma." Weeks later it is back to "worrisome for hepatoma." A single scan will use different terms in different sections of the report. Example case: Abdominal CT reveals a 1 cm liver lesion. Per the discussion portion of the scan, the lesion is consistent with hepatocellular carcinoma. Per final diagnosis: 1 cm liver lesion, possibly hepatocellular carcinoma. Is this report diagnostic of cancer? Would the date of this report be the date of diagnosis? (Patient did receive a liver transplant for hepatocellular carcinoma months later.) |
When a reportable ambiguous term is used in one part of a report or the medical record and a non-reportable ambiguous term is used in another part of the report or the medical record, accept the reportable term and accession the case. The example above is reportable. "Consistent with" is a reportable ambiguous term. Accept "consistent with" over the non-reportable term "possibly." The date of this report would be the date of diagnosis if this is the earliest report using reportable terminology. |
2008 |
|
|
20041066 | Reportability/Date of Diagnosis--Ovary: Is a patient SEER reportable in 2001 or 2003 if she presented with a diagnosis of papillary serous tumor of low malignant potential [borderline tumor] per the 5/2001 surgery but at the time of the planned second look laparoscopic surgery is stated to have Stage 3A ovarian cancer? See Discussion. |
A patient was seen in 5/2001 for large pelvic mass growing from right ovary. After TAH and USO and partial omemtectomy, path diagnosis was papillary serous tumor of low malignant potential (borderline tumor), unruptured. Right ovary and omental implant have identical histologic appearance, except the psammoma body formation and the ovary does not. Patient does not return for lap as planned in 6-12 months. In 1/03 she returns to hospital with abdominal pain and has debulking, hemicolectomy and Hartmann's procedure. 1/03 Path report "metastatic papillary serous adenoca." Chart now says "History of stage 3A ovarian cancer." |
Yes, this case is reportable in 2003. Malignancy was confirmed in 2003. The diagnosis made in 2001 is not reportable for that year, and was not reviewed or revised according to the information provided. |
2004 |
|
|
20180001 | Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Small intestine: Is this case reportable? Widely metastatic gastrointestinal stomal tumor (GIST) was diagnosed at an out-of-state facility in 2017 and referred back to a hospital in our state for chemotherapy where there is a history of a small bowel resection of GIST of uncertain malignant potential (8936/1) doneat the hospital in 2003. If so, is the diagnosis date 2003 or 2017? See Discussion. |
The hospital registrar reports that the case was identified at the hospital because of the referral for chemotherapy for the metastatic GIST. The records from the out-of-state hospital mentioned a history of a small bowel resection in 2003 for a borderline tumor. The registrar went back through the hospital's old records and found the surgery was done for GIST of low malignant potential at her facility. The question is whether to report the case or not, and if reported, is 2003 the diagnosis date. The rules say to change the behavior and backdate the diagnosiswhen a tumor is presumed benign and islater diagnosed as malignant. Another problem for this case is that the out-of-state hospital did not review the slides from the 2003 surgery. |
Report the case with a diagnosis date of 2017. The 2003 diagnosis was not reviewed, and there are no physician statements that cancer was present in 2003, or that the metastases are attributable to the 2003 diagnosis. Document the details of the case in text fields. |
2018 |
|
|
20210037 | Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Thyroid: Is category Thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TI-RADS) 4 (4a/4b) or TI-RADS 5 on imaging diagnostic of thyroid cancer, and if so, can we use the date of the impression on the scan that states either of these categories as the diagnosis date? |
Answer revised 3/31/2022 Do not report cases based only on the TI-RADS category. The most recent information from ACR on TI-RADS indicates that neither TI-RADS 4 nor TI-RADS 5 is clearly defined as malignancy. TI-RADS 4 is "moderately suspicious" and TI-RADS 5 is "highly suspicious" but they do not specify what they are suspicious for. We need more information to determine reportability. |
2021 | |
|
|
20051046 | Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Leukemia: What is the diagnostic confirmation if a positive BCR/ABL result is diagnostic of a malignancy in a patient suspected to have chronic myelogenous leukemia? See Discussion. |
Example 1: Peripheral smear states: "No morphologic evidence of chronic myelogenous leukemia." Addendum: Molecular diagnostic studies showed a positive rearrangement for the BCR gene with the M-bcr (CML type) and of bcr-abl transcript expression". Example 2: Hematopathology is negative. Molecular diagnostic study: "fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) studies exceeded the limits established by the XXX Cytogenetics Laboratory for this probe set, and thus, demonstrated statistical evidence of BCR/ABL fusion." |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010: Do not determine reportablility using cytogenetics or molecular studies alone. Since these are not routine screening tests, we suggest that you query the physician and review the medical record to see what prompted the study and what is being done with the result, but the test alone is not in and of itself sufficient to report the case. For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ. |
2005 |
|
|
20010155 | Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Melanoma: Would a shave biopsy diagnosis of "highly suggestive of early melanoma", followed by a re-excision diagnosis of "no residual disease", be SEER reportable if the clinician referred to the case clinically as a melanoma? If so, what would the Diagnostic Confirmation be? See discussion. |
Pathology report from a shave biopsy states: "...markedly atypical junctional melanocytic proliferation. Changes highly suggestive of early melanoma arising adjacent to superficial congenital nevus." The re-excision pathology report states "biopsy proven melanoma" in the "Clinical History" section of the report (which is a reference to the original shave biopsy). The re-excision final pathology diagnosis states "no evidence of melanoma." The physician states that he thinks this is a melanoma. Should it be reported? Should Diagnostic Confirmation be coded to 1 or 8? |
The case is reportable because the physician documented a clinical diagnosis of malignant melanoma. Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field to 8 [Clinical diagnosis only (other than 5, 6 or 7)]. |
2001 |
|
|
20071063 | Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation: If a diagnosis based solely on positive flow cytometry is reportable even if a bone marrow biopsy is negative, how is diagnostic confirmation coded? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 2010 The case is reportable if a recognized medical practitioner says the patient has cancer. A flow cytometry alone is not diagnostic but it may be supported by either a positive bone marrow or a clinician's statement. If the clinicians statement is based only on flow cytometry, code diagnostic confirmation to 8 [Clinical diagnosis only]. |
2007 | |
|
|
20081009 | Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation: If a physician signs a case out as "precancerous melanosis of the face" (8741/2) and there is no microscopic confirmation of the disease, is this a reportable clinical diagnosis? |
This case is reportable because the diagnosis of precancerous melanosis was stated by a recognized medical practitioner. Precancerous melanosis meets the reportable diagnosis criteria (See 2007 SEER Manual page 1). Assign diagnostic confirmation code 8 [clinical diagnosis only]. Set the appropriate override flag for the SEER edit. |
2008 |
An official website of the United States government
