Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are sphenoid wing meningiomas reportable? See discussion.
It's my understanding that true intraosseous meningiomas are very rare. It's also my understanding that cranial meninges DO cover the sphenoid wing, so I'm wondering if it's possible to have a meningioma of the sphenoid wing on imaging that arises from the meninges NOT the bone. Is that the deciding factor on reportability? It's been suggested to me that meninges cells do lie within the bone, but again if a meningioma is described as being located at the sphenoid wing on imaging, without bone involvement - and no surgery is performed - I do not understand why it is specifically excluded as non-reportable.
This answer pertains to cases diagnosed prior to 2018. For 2018 and later cases, refer to the Non-Malignant CNS Solid Tumor Rules.
Note: This answer updates previous answers which have been removed from the SEER Inquiry System.
Intraosseous meningiomas are not reportable. You are correct, these are rare meningiomas originating in bone. The term "sphenoid wing meningioma" is sometimes used for an intraosseous meningioma of the sphenoid bone. Yes, it's possible to have a meningioma of the sphenoid wing on imaging that arises from the meninges NOT the bone. Read the available information carefully. When the site of origin is described as "along the sphenoid wing" or "overlying the sphenoid wing" report the meningioma. These descriptions indicate that the meningioma originates from the meninges covering bone rather than the bone itself. Meningioma arising in bone is rare enough, that when present, we would expect it to be clearly stated as such. In the absence of a statement indicating origin in bone, the meningioma is most likely arising from meninges covering the bone.
MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries/Histology--Rectum: How many primaries does this person have and what is the correct histology? See discussion.
Rectal polyp excised in June, 2012, found to have adenocarcinoma in situ in a tubulovillous adenoma. Additional colorectal biopsies in November; all were negative. Another rectal polyp removed in December 2012 showing a tubulovillous adenoma with focal carcinoma in situ. Then, in February, 2013 another rectal polyp removed. This was diagnosed as mod. diff. adenocarcinoma with mucinous features, infiltrating into submucosa, seen in a background of tubulovillous adenoma. Surgical margins free (mucin %=40%). Finally, in May, 2013, a low anterior resection with no residual adenocarcinoma.
This appears to be adenocarcinoma in multiple adenomatous polyps (8221/3), although the final path from May 2013 described one benign polyp and said, 'no other masses, suspicious lesions or polyps are identified.' Going through the MP/H rules, both M13 and M14 result in this being a single primary, and come before the rule about an invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later is a new primary. The original abstract was coded C209 and 8263/2. If this is a single primary, should it be changed to 8221 with a behavior code of 3? Is this scenario another example of when to change the original diagnosis based on subsequent information?
Abstract a single primary and code as 8263/3. Other Sites rule M14 applies. The histology code is 8263/3 based on rules H28 and H12. Apply H28 first, make a second pass through the H rules and apply H12. See slide 18 in the "Beyond the Basics" presentation for applicable instructions on a similar situation, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/training_adv/SEER_MPH_Gen_Instruc_06152007.pdf
This case is an example of the need to update the original abstract based on more complete, subsequent, information.
Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Liver: Is a statement of LI-RADS 5 or LI-RADS 4 diagnostic of HCC? See discussion.
We are seeing more use of LI-RAD categories on scans. The final impression on the scan will be LI-RADS Category 5 or LI-RADS Category 4, with no specific statement of HCC. The scans include a blanket statement with the definitions of the LI-RADS categories as below.
LIRADS (v2014) categories
M - Possible non-HCC malignancy
1 - Definitely Benign
2 - Probably Benign
3 - Intermediate Probability for HCC
4 - Probably HCC
5 - Definitely HCC (concordant with OPTN 5)
A previous SINQ, 20010094, indicates that we cannot use BI-RADS categories for breast cancer diagnosis, but those BI-RADS definitions are slightly different. Most often there will be a subsequent clinical statement of HCC, so the question is also in reference to Diagnosis Date. Can we use the date of the scan's impression, which states LI-RADS category 4 or 5, as the Diagnosis Date?
Report cases with an LI-RADS category LR-5 or LR-5V based on the 2014 American College of Radiology definitions, http://nrdr.acr.org/lirads/
Do not report cases based only on an LI-RADS category of LR-4.
Use the date of the LR-5 or LR-5V scan as the date of diagnosis when it is the earliest confirmation of the malignancy.
Reportability--Brain: Is benign lymphangioma of the brain (9170/0) reportable? It is not on the list of non-malignant blood vessel tumors in the National Program of Cancer Registries Clarifications for Central Nervous System (CNS) tumors.
Lymphangioma of the brain or CNS is not reportable. Lymphangioma is a malformation of the lymphatic system. Even though it has an ICD-O-3 code, do not report it.
First course treatment/Chemotherapy: Is metronomic chemotherapy coded as chemotherapy?
Code metronomic chemotherapy as chemotherapy. Metronomic chemotherapy, also referred to as low-dose metronomic (LDM) chemotherapy, is an emerging cancer treatment approach which administers relatively low doses of traditional chemotherapy drugs over a long period of time and without ‘breaks’ in treatment. By using lower doses this method of treatment minimizes the side effects of traditional chemotherapy.
First course treatment/Immunotherapy--Prostate: Is XGEVA, given for bone mets from prostate cancer, abstracted as immunotherapy, or is it an ancillary drug and not recorded?
Do not record XGEVA when given for bone mets from prostate cancer. See SEER*Rx for more information.
Reportability--Bone: Is an "atypical cartilaginous tumor" reportable? See Discussion.
Patient had a core needle biopsy of the right acetabulum. Final diagnosis on the path report is: Atypical cartilaginous tumor (formerly chondrosarcoma, grade 1).
Is this cell type reportable? If so, is it reportable only because the pathologist recorded clarifying text in parentheses? If the text in the parentheses was not available, is the histology "atypical cartilaginous tumor" reportable?
Atypical cartilaginous tumor of bone is not reportable. The WHO terminology is "atypical cartilagenous tumor/chondrosarcoma grade I." WHO classifies this entity as low malignant potential (behavior code /1).
Chondrosarcoma grade II or grade III is reportable based on the WHO classification of malignant (behavior code /3).
MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: What is the histology code for a tumor originating in the cerebellum and extending into the fourth venrticle described as a glioblastoma with primitive neuroectodermal tumor component (WHO Grade IV)?
The WHO Classification of CNS tumours lists glioblastoma with primitive neuroectodermal tumor component as a subtype of glioblastoma and assigns 9440/3. Also referred to as glioblastoma with a primitive neuronal component.
Reportability/Histology--Pituitary Gland: How are Rathke cleft cyst and Rathke pouch tumor distinguished and are they both reportable?
Rathke cleft cyst is not reportable. Cysts are not neoplastic. However, Rathke pouch tumor (C751, 9350/1) is a reportable neoplasm for cases diagnosed 2004 and later. The Rathke pouch is coded to the pituitary gland. Benign and borderline pituitary tumors have been reportable since 2004.
An official website of the United States government
Home