Reportability/Melanoma: Is evolving melanoma reportable with a Clark's level and Breslow's thickness are cited in the pathology report? See Discussion.
How do we interpret the reportability of the following: The histological and immunohistochemical findings are most consistent with an early-evolving malignant melanoma, superficial spreading type, with Clark's level II and maximal Breslow thickness 0.33 mm, arising in association with an atypical nevus. Since a Clark's level and Breslow's thickness are included, is this reportable? Is this really an evolving melanoma?
As of 01/01/2021, early or evolving melanoma in situ, or any other early or evolving melanoma, is reportable.
Reportability/Liver: If on imaging, there is no statement of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) score but there is reference that a lesion is in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) 5 category, is hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) reportable based on the OPTN 5 classification? See Discussion.
SINQ 20160008 discusses the reportabilty and diagnosis date for liver primaries where imaging references the LI-RADS category as LR-5 or LR-5V. The 2018 SEER Coding and Staging Manual, Appendix E Reportable Example #16, demonstrates this concept. According to the LI-RADS categories a value of 5 is "definitely HCC" and is concordant with OPTN 5. Often we see only the OPTN categorization.
Report HCC based on the OPTN class of 5. OPTN class 5 indicates that a nodule meets radiologic criteria for HCC. Be sure to document in text fields.
Reportability/In situ--Prostate: Has there been a change in reportability for prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN III) (C619)? The 2018 SEER Manual notes: Collection stopped effective with cases diagnosed 01/01/2001 and later; however, on the casefinding list effective 10/01/2019, code D07.5, carcinoma in situ of prostate, is listed as reportable.
PIN III is not reportable in accordance with the 2018 SEER Manual; however, carcinoma in situ of the prostate is reportable as they represent different histology codes. The casefinding list is used to search for reportable cases and is not the same as a reportable list.
Reportability/Histology: Does Cancer Pathology Coding Histology And Registration Terminology (Cancer PathCHART) determine if the histology is reportable or do we have to use the Excel ICD-O-3.2 spreadsheet?
The CPC ICD-O-3 Site Morphology Validation Lists (SMVLs) designate all tumor site-morphology combinations that are either valid or impossible as determined for the sites reviewed by the Cancer PathCHART initiative. These lists provide information on the Validity Status of specific tumor site and morphology combinations, similar to the way the ICD-O-3 SEER Site/Histology Validation List used to. However, the CPC SMVLs do not include information on the reportability of specific tumor site and morphology combinations. For tumor reportability, you will continue to use the Excel ICD-O-3.2 spreadsheets posted to the NAACCR ICD-O-3 Coding Updates website: https://www.naaccr.org/icdo3/, and the most recent SEER Manual and federal, state, local, and other standard setters' reportability requirements.
Reportability/Histology: Would a histology reading "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix be reportable? Since the word "tumor NOS" and "neoplasm NOS" both code to 8000, I would assume they would be interchangeable but just wanted to verify.
According to SINQ 20130027 & 20140002 a "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" of the appendix IS reportable.
"Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix is reportable. According to the WHO classification of Digestive System Tumors, "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix is synonymous with NET. WHO states on page 13 "The term 'neuroendocrine neoplasm' can be used synonymously with 'neuroendocrine tumor.'"
Neuroendocrine "tumor," or NET G1, is listed in the WHO classification as one of the malignant neoplasms of the appendix.
Reportability/Histology: Is this reporatable? If so, what is the correct histology?
2012 duodenal nodule biopsy, pathology positive for well differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm.
Report this case as 8240/3. In this context, well differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm seems to be a synonym for neuroendocrine tumor (NET) G1 (carcinoid). According to the WHO classification, "Neuroendocrine neoplasms of the duodenum comprise NETs..."
Reportability/Histology: Is a focal high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL/moderate to severe dysplasia/VIN II-III) in the vulva reportable for cases diagnosed in 2018? See discussion.
Since high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HGSIL) is reportable for the vulva in 2018 (per SINQ 20130185) but VIN II-III is not reportable, we need to clarify this reporting format seen in our area.
Report when stated to be high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion of the vulva. The 2018 SEER Manual says to assign 8077/2. HGSIL is a synonym for squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III for vulva and vagina only.
Reportability/Histology: Is a diagnosis of non-lung neuroendocrine tumorlet reportable? See Discussion.
Patient was diagnosed March 2023 with a neuroendocrine tumorlet of the rectum measuring 0.8 mm via excisional biopsy during colonoscopy.
Prior SINQ 20160011 (stomach specific) indicates microcarcinoid and carcinoid tumors are reportable. Microcarcinoid is a designation for neuroendocrine tumors of the stomach when they are less than 0.5 cm. in size.
Is the current rectal tumor a reportable gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumor if it is less than 5 mm (i.e., is a neuroendocrine tumorlet equivalent to a microcarcinoid)?
Do not report neuroendocrine tumorlet of lung and non-lung sites. Microcarcinoid and carcinoid tumors are reportable.
Tumorlet is a tumor of neuroendocrine differentiation, defined by size < 5 mm in diameter, mitotic count < 2 mitoses/2 mm², and absence of necrosis. Microcarcinoid is a designation for neuroendocrine tumors when they are less than 0.5 cm. in size. The term "tumorlet" is used in a number of other settings, referring to small tumors (usually < 0.5 cm), and does not necessarily mean carcinoid tumor.
The term microcarcinoid tumor is not equivalent to neuroendocrine tumorlet.
Reportability/Histology: Is a case reportable if the Final Diagnosis in a pathology report indicates a non reportable diagnosis but the Diagnosis Comment on the same report indicates a non reportable diagnosis followed by a reportable diagnosis in parenthesis? See Discussion.
08/13/2007 polypectomy final diagnosis: tubulovillous adenoma with severe epithelial atypia. Dx Comment (on same path) ...atypia including focal cribriform glandular architecture (carcinoma in situ).
This case is reportable as carcinoma in situ. The histology code is 8263/2 [adenocarcinoma in situ in a tubulovillous adenoma].
According to our pathologist consultant, a "comment" in a path report is a part of the diagnosis - it often elaborates on or clarifies the diagnosis. Placing [carcinoma in situ] in the comment, even in parentheses, indicates that is the appropriate diagnosis for our purposes.
An official website of the United States government
Home