System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 02/18/2026 23:27 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20051053 Reportability/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology--Anus: How many primaries exist if an 11/7/03 anal lesion presents with poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma with signet ring features and extensive mucin production and the 1/9/04 wide excision has adenocarcinoma and Paget disease (intraepidermal adenocarcinoma) extends to skin margin?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

This is a single primary: the adenocarcinoma with the Paget representing intraepithelial extension of the process. Tumor cells can invade from their place in the epithelium into the underlying stroma either at the primary site, or at their extension site (skin).

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2005
20071092 Reportability/Primary Site--Brain and CNS: Is a chondroma, NOS or a chondroblastoma, NOS that occurs in an intracranial site or along the spinal cord reportable? See Discussion.

In ICD-O-3, chondroma and chondroblastoma are site-associated morphologies for bone. If a chondroma or a chondroblastoma occurs along the spinal cord, is this one of those situations where we can be quite comfortable with a default site to bone and not to spinal cord?

Reference: ICD-O-3; Primary Central Nervous System Tumors, NPCR Training Materials 2004; SINQ 20021152

Chondroma, NOS or chondroblastoma, NOS occuring in intracranial sites or along the spinal cord are not reportable.

Chondroma, NOS and chonroblastoma, NOS are benign tumors of the bone itself, not the intracranial contents.

 2007
20051049 Reportability/Primary Site--Head & Neck: If a wedge resection/shield resection is performed on the lower lip for SCCA and the path report refers to "lip, NOS" with no mention of vermilion border, is this case reportable? Review the operative and pathology reports, and the physical exam for mention of "mucosal surface" (reportable) or "skin" (not reportable). If neither are mentioned, lip, NOS is reportable per the ICD-O-3 code of C009. 2005
20100052 Reportability/Primary Site: What is the reportability status and primary site for a papillary carcinoma of thyroid tissue arising in an otherwise benign mature monodermal cystic teratoma (struma ovarii)? See Discussion. Final diagnosis on the pathology report states, "One ovary showing mature monodermal cystic teratoma composed of thyroid tissue (struma ovarii)." The pathology COMMENT section states, "There is a 0.1 cm focus of thyroid tissue within the struma ovarii showing cytologic features of papillary carcinoma. This finding is likely of no clinical consequence."

A papillary carcinoma of thyroid tissue in benign struma ovarii (mature cystic teratoma) is reportable.

These ovarian tumors contain a diversity of tissues including hair, teeth, bone, thyroid, etc. This reportable malignancy arose in thyroid tissue within the ovarian tumor. Code the primary site to ovary. Code to the actual organ in which the cancer arose. This will keep the case in the appropriate category for surgery coding, regional nodes, staging, etc.

2010
20031201 Reportability/Terminology, NOS--Hematopoietic, NOS: Are the diagnoses "myelodysplastic syndrome," "myelodysplastic syndrome, thrombocytopenia" and "myelodysplastic syndrome, anemia" all reportable to SEER for diagnosis 2001 and later?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:"Myelodysplastic syndrome" (NOS) is reportable to SEER--ICD-O-3 code 9989/3. "Myelodysplastic syndrome, thrombocytopenia" is not reportable to SEER because "thrombocytopenia" is not reportable. "Myelodysplastic syndrome, anemia" is not reportable to SEER because "anemia" is not reportable.

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.

 2003
20031200 Reportability/Terminology, NOS--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is "smoldering" multiple myeloma reportable to SEER?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Yes, "smoldering" multiple myeloma is reportable to SEER as multiple myeloma [9732/3].

According to our pathologist consultant, "smoldering" multiple myeloma would certainly refer to a diagnosed process. Smoldering means the process is progressing, but perhaps slowly, or even at a slower pace than might be expected.

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.

 2003
20071056 Reportability/Terminology--Prostate: Is the diagnosis of "atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma" sufficient to report a prostate cancer if a note states that there is "insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy"? See Discussion.

Date of report is July 2005. One positive specimen of 12.

Specimen 6: Diagnosis = Prostate tissue with a small focus of atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma. Note. There is insufficient cytologic and/or architectural atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy. Negative basal cell staining with cytokeratin... in atypical glands is consistent with the diagnosis of suspicious for adenocarcinoma. In addition, the diagnosis is suppported by a positive staining for alpha-methyl COA racemase (P504S), a recently discovered marker that is preferentially expressed in prostate cancer...

This case is reportable. The diagnosis states "suspicious for adenocarcinoma." "Suspicious for" is a reportable ambiguous term.

The additional stains supported this "suspicious" diagnosis. A more definitive diagnosis could not be made based on this specimen.

 2007
20051012 Reportability: Are malignant tumors of genital skin reportable? On page 1 of the 2004 SEER Manual, Reportable Diagnoses, 1.b.i. Exceptions: malignant and invasive histologies not required by SEER - Skin. There is no longer a note that states that lesions ARE reportable for skin of the genital sites. Has SEER discontinued the collection of malignant skin tumors of the genital sites OR is the manual in error? The histologies listed in the exception on page 1 are NOT reportable when the topography code is C440-C449. The manual specifically lists the topography codes in 1.b.1. Diagnoses with the listed histologies ARE reportable when the topography code is NOT C440-C449. Genital skin sites are not coded C440-C449 so a note is not needed. 2005
20100014 Reportability: Are there criteria other than a pathologist or clinician's statement that a registrar can use to determine reportability of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST)? See Discussion.

Per SINQ 20091021 and 20021151, GIST cases are not reportable unless they are stated to be malignant. A pathologist or clinician must confirm the diagnosis of cancer. There are cases that are not stated to be malignant in the pathology report or confirmed as such by a clinician; however, these cases do have information that for other primary sites would typically be taken into consideration when determining reportability. The final diagnosis on the pathology report for all 16 cases is "GIST." The additional comment(s) for each of the 16 different cases is reported below. Are any of the following cases reportable?

1) Pathology report indicates that the bulk of the tumor is submucosal. It extends through the muscularis propria and abuts the serosa.

2) Pathology report states tumor extends to serosal surface of transverse colon, but not into muscularis propria. CD 117 and CD 34 are positive.

3) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades through the gastric wall to the serosal surface.

4) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades pericolic fat tissue.

5) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate omental caking.

6) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate hepatic metastases. Hepatic metastases are not biopsied.

7) Tumor stated to be unresectable and extends into pancreas. Chemotherapy given.

8) Pathology report states tumor is low to intermediate grade and involves serosal (visceral peritoneum).

9) Tumor size is 17.5 cm. Pathology report states "malignant risk".

10) Pathology report states tumor "into muscularis propria" or tumor "involves muscularis propria" or "infiltrates into muscularis propria".

11) Pathology report states, "high malignant potential; omentum inv by tumor." It is not stated in path report or final diagnosis to be malignant GIST.

12) Pathology report states that tumor arises from wall of small bowel and extends into thin serosal surface.

13) Pathology report states minimal invasion of lamina propria; does not penetrate muscularis propria.

14) Pathology report states, "high mitotic activity >10/50 HPF; high risk for aggressive behavior; moderate malignant potential."

15) Pathology report states tumor size is >5 cm. Intermediate risk for aggressive behavior; CD117+ KIT exon 11+.

16) Pathology report states "high risk of malignancy."

 For GIST to be reportable, the final diagnosis on the pathology report must definitively state that the GIST is malignant, or invasive, or in situ. Case 6 is the only exception. It would be reportable assuming the scan actually states "hepatic metastases." Based only on the information provided, none of the other examples are reportable. The type of extension and/or invasion mentioned in the other examples are not sufficient to confirm malignancy. Borderline neoplasms can extend and invade, but do not metastasize. Only malignant neoplasms metastasize. 2010
20081081 Reportability: If a dermatopathologist refers to an atypical fibroxanthoma as a malignant process, but the ICD-O-3 indicates it is a borderline process, is this a reportable case? See Discussion. "Final Diagnosis: Surface of ulcerated histologically malignant spindle cell neoplasm, consistent with atypical fibroxanthoma. Note: An exhaustive immunohistochemical work-up shows no melanocytic, epithelial or vascular differentiation. Atypical fibroxanthoma is a superficial form of a malignant fibrous histiocytoma." The pathologist has the final say on behavior. In this case, the pathologist states that this tumor is malignant in the final diagnosis. Therefore, this case is reportable. 2008