Reportability: A "gastrointestinal stromal tumor" (GIST) is not always stated to be "malignant" in the path report even though the tumor appears to meet criteria for malignancy. Is the tumor SEER reportable? See discussion.
Evaluation of Malignancy and Prognosis of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Review. Miettinen, M. et al, Human Pathology 2002 May; 33(5) 478-83). This article states there is an increasing number of GISTs because the majority of tumors previously diagnosed as gastrointestinal smooth muscle tumors (leiomyomas, leiomyoblastomas and leiomyosarcomas) are now classified as GISTs. It states that gastrointestinal autonomic nerve tumors (GANTs) are also GISTs based on their KIT positivity and presence of KIT-activating mutations. This article also states that a GIST is probably malignant if it meets the following criteria: 1) Intestinal tumors: Maximum diameter >5 cm or more than 5 mitoses per 50 HPFs. 2) Gastric tumors: Maximum diameter >10 cm or more than 5 mitoses per 50 HPFs.
Some of the path reports that meet these criteria use the word "malignant", and others do not. Some of the cases that are not called "malignant" in the path diagnosis are signed out clinically as "malignant."
The case is reportable if a pathologist or clinician confirms a diagnosis of cancer. If there is no such confirmation, the case is not SEER reportable.
Reportability: Given that per the 2012 SEER Manual and SINQ 20120081 VIN II-III is no longer reportable, does this change exclusively apply to VIN II-III or does it also apply to AIN II-III, VAIN II-III, etc.? See Discussion.
VIN II-III was a reportable condition in the past. There was a SINQ note to that effect which is now gone from the system. Would it be better to reactivate that note and put a date reference in it so that there is documentation available to confirm this disease (and other IN II-III diseases) was previously reportable? If the note is not reactivated, could there be some indication in SINQ 20120081 of the prior reportability of this disease process?
For cases diagnosed 2021 or later, VIN II-III is reportable. Similarly, AIN II-III, VAIN II-III, etc. are reportable. For cases diagnosed 2021 or later, the primary resource for reportability is ICD-O-3.2. Squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II is listed in ICD-O-3.2 as 8077/2 making it reportable. This applies to the various sites of intraepithelial neoplasia grade II including anus, vulva, and vagina.
Reportability: Is a low-grade neuroendocrine neoplasm with gastrin expression found in a periportal lymph node reportable if the clinical impression is compatible with a gastrinoma? See Discussion.
SINQ 20110095 states that "low-grade neuroendocrine neoplasm/carcinoid tumor with expression of gastrin" is reportable. However, in this case "carcinoid tumor" is not mentioned. Is this case reportable if the expression "carcinoid tumor" is missing in the diagnosis of the pathology report? Also, does the fact that the gastrinoma was found in a lymph node affect reportability?
This is a reportable case. Code the histology as malignant gastrinoma [8153/3].
Gastrinomas are usually malignant. This one is apparently present in a metastatic site (periportal lymph node) which confirms the malignancy.
Reportability: Is a thymoma, type B3 malignant and, therefore, reportable? See Discussion.
Recent information received from a registrar/pathologist states the WHO classifies well-differentiated thymic carcinoma [8585/3] as a synonym for type B3 thymoma.
For cases diagnosed prior to 2021
Thymoma, type B3 [8585/1] is not reportable. Well-differentiated thymic carcinoma [8585/3] is reportable.
WHO lists well-differentiated thymic carcinoma as a synonym for type B3 thymoma, but indicates the behavior code differs as indicated above.
See the applicable SEER manual for cases diagnosed 2021 and later.
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.
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 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.
An official website of the United States government
Home