Reportability/Brain and CNS: Is incidentaloma reportable from brain and central nervous system (CNS) imaging? See Discussion.
We are seeing the term "incidentaloma" on magnetic resonance imaging (MR) reports of head and also with physician statements. For example, this MR of the head: Impression--Suboptimal study due to motion degradation. Heterogeneously enhancing pituitary gland without evidence of acute abnormality. A 3 mm focus of relative hypoenhancement in the left gland is favored to represent an incidentaloma. Advise correlation with clinical findings.
Also, there are cases where the scans show meningioma and then at a later date it is stated to be an incidentaloma in physician notes.
Is the term "incidentaloma" alone reportable, if the term "tumor" for CNS cases is never stated? When I googled the term, it is stated to mean "tumor."
The term "incidentaloma" alone is not reportable. Look for a reportable term elsewhere or in later information. When the term "incidentaloma" is used on a magnetic resonance imaging (MR) report, it refers to "a disease or physical condition found as a secondary by-product of capturing the necessary volume of tissue within the field of view of the MR examination" (http://radsource.us/incidentaloma). It is not necessarily neoplastic.
Reportability/Brain and CNS--Pituitary: Can a clinical diagnosis of pituitary adenoma be accessioned based on imaging if treatment is not given and subsequent imaging years later shows no evidence of pituitary adenoma? See Discussion.
The patient was clinically diagnosed with a pituitary adenoma on MRI in June 2009. The MRI noted an unusual contour involving the superior margin of the pituitary gland and the clinical interpretation was a small pituitary adenoma. The patient did not follow-up with the recommended repeat imaging and never received treatment for the pituitary adenoma.
The patient was eventually seen again in January 2020 and the MRI showed no adenoma in the pituitary gland. Since pituitary adenomas are known to spontaneously regress, should the 2009 diagnosis of pituitary adenoma be accessioned as a SEER reportable benign central nervous system (CNS) tumor?
Pituitary adenoma is reportable even if it later regresses without treatment. Use text fields to record the details of this case.
Reportability/Behavior:
Our registry collects some borderline (behavior /1) cases that are not
reportable to SEER or any other standard setters. Can we assign a behavior code
of /2 to these cases?
Do not assign a behavior code of /2 to these cases unless you
have a way to flag them so that they are not reported to the standard setters
as in situ cases. Work with your state central registry to ensure that these cases are not unintentionally included in state case submission.
Reportability/Behavior: Is the following reportable, and if so, what is the histology code? Final Diagnosis (on multiple conjunctive excisions): Conjunctiva - primary acquired melanosis with atypia (see note). Note: "In all 3 specimens the process extends to the margins of excision. Complete extirpation is recommended (primary acquired melanosis with atypia is considered melanoma in situ).
Do not report primary acquired melanosis with atypia.
According to our expert pathologist consultant, "There has been a lot of debate in the literature about the diagnostic criteria, terminology, and natural history of primary acquired melanosis [PAM]. Your case comes down squarely on the main issue, which is whether PAM with atypia should be regarded as melanoma in situ. In most studies it appears that PAMs with no atypia or mild atypia do not progress to melanoma, and only a small percentage of those with severe atypia do so." "PAM, even with atypia, is not melanoma in situ, and should not be reported."
For further information, see this article for a review of a large number of patients: Shields, Jerry A, Shields, Carol L, et al. Primary Acquired Melanosis of the Conjunctiva: Experience with 311 Eyes. Trans. Am Ophthalmol Soc 105:61-72, Dec 2007.
Reportability/Behavior: Is myxoinflammatory fibroblastic sarcoma (MIFS) reportable for 2018? This histology is on the 2018 ICD-O-3 histology update list with a behavior code of /1. See discussion.
This will be a tough one for registrars to recognize as non-reportable since the terminology contains sarcoma, so we just want to double check.
Myxoinflammatory fibroblastic sarcoma (MIFS) (C49._), 8811/1, is not reportable for 2018 based on the 2018 ICD-O-3 New Codes, Behaviors, and Terms list. This is a new histology/behavior not previously listed in ICD-O-3. According to the WHO 4th Ed Tumors of Soft Tissue & Bone, this histology has been given a benign (/1) behavior; however, if the pathologist and/or physician state the tumor is malignant or metastatic, report the case and assign behavior code /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.
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--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--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.
An official website of the United States government
Home