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: 11/06/2026 20:11 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20081086 Reportability: Is a case reportable if a benign diagnosis is obtained on a resection that follows a positive needle aspiration? See Discussion. Fine needle aspiration of the thyroid diagnosis was "positive for malignant cells, favor medullary carcinoma." Subsequent thyroidectomy was reported as benign. This case is reportable. The cytology is positive. Report as medulary carcinoma of the thyroid. N/A N/A 2008
20100067 MP/H Rules/Reportability--Ovary: Should an ovarian tumor with the histology of mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma be accessioned based on the presence of a foci of intraepithelial carcinoma? See Discussion.

The final diagnosis on the pathology report, "Omentum: mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma. Peritoneal fluid for cytology: neoplastic cells present; low grade serous neoplasm. Lymph nodes, right pelvic: one lymph node harboring implants of serous borderline tumor and endosalpingiosis within the subcapsular sinus. Bilateral fallopian tubes and ovaries: mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma involving ovarian surface and serosal surface of the tube. Detached fragment of borderline tumor within the tubal lumen. Uterus, cervix, and segment of colon: mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma involving parametrial and paracervical tissue, cul de sac, uterine and colonic serosa. Nine pericolonic lymph nodes negative for tumor. Stage III.

I&R # 45622 asked if a mucinous borderline tumor with intraepithelial carcinoma and focal microinvasion is reportable. The answer given on that site was that the case is not reportable. According to MPH, FORDS, and Collaborative Stage, intraepithelial carcinoma is in situ, behavior code 2, and is reportable. Has this changed?

This case is reportable because there is a diagnosis of carcinoma (intraepithelial carcinoma). N/A N/A 2010
20100109 Reportability--Ovary: Does the ICD-O-3 term "stromal endometriosis" [8931/3] always imply a reportable malignant disease process if the pathologist also states there is "no evidence of carcinoma" in the same report? See Discussion.

ROS Final Diagnosis: LSO: Ovary with an endometriotic cyst (1.2 cm) and stromal endometriosis with multifocal papillary syncytial eosinophilic, clear cell and tubal metaplasia, no evidence of carcinoma.

COMMENT: There is extensive endometriosis involving the ovarian stroma and the ovarian surface. The ovarian stroma contains multiple cystic endometrial glands and surrounding endometrial type stroma with variable amounts of hemorrhage. There are non-cystic foci of endometriosis comprised of small, irregular glandular structures within the stroma. The lining of larger cyst/cysts is involved by a single layer of cuboidal to columnar cells with markedly eosinophilic cytoplasm in areas of serous (tubal) metaplasia and papillary projections suggestive of papillary syncytial metaplasia. Within these areas there is epithelial tufting and stratification, raising the consideration of proliferative/borderline change (which we cannot entirely exclude), however, given the background of endometriosis and morphologic similarity to papillary syncytial metaplasia in the endometrium, we favor that this is a non-neoplastic reactive change. There is no evidence of carcinoma.

 This case is not reportable. The pathologist states that there is no evidence of carcinoma. The ICD-O-3 matrix system applies, giving the pathologist the final say on behavior. Ovary N/A 2010
20071012 Reportability--Melanoma: Is a skin excision final diagnosis of "melanocytic tumor with uncertain malignant potential" reportable if the path COMMENT states the initial shave biopsy diagnosis was "melanocytic tumor with uncertain malignant potential [minimal deviation melanoma]"? See Discussion.

SKIN, RIGHT FOOT, EXCISION: CHRONIC SCARIFICATION WITH RESIDUAL ATYPICAL MELANOCYTES IN THE DERMIS IDENTIFIED, BUT COMPLETELY EXCISED.

Comment: The prior outside biopsy report indicates that the lesion was a melanocytic tumor of uncertain malignant potential (minimal deviation melanoma) measuring at least 2.5 mm in depth. There was apparently no in situ component. Special stains performed here are similar, with positive reactivity for Melan A and S-100. The cells are atypical, but there are reactive changes, making it impossible to accurately assess the true nature of the lesion in this biopsy. If this is a minimal deviation melanoma, it would be classified as a T3 (T3a since there is no description in the outside report of ulceration) lesion. The atypical melanocytes extend to a depth of 1.1 mm in this 2 mm deep biopsy, but are completely excised, both at the deep margin and at all of the peripheral margins (closest margin is superior, with clearance of 7 mm).

PATH FROM INITIAL BIOPSY: Diagnosis: Rt dorsal foot, shave biopsy: Melanocytic tumor of uncertain malignant potential (see comment). Tumor depth at least 2.5mm Deep margin involved. Comment: As a primary lesion, I would favor that this represents a melanocytic tumor with indeterminate biologic potential also known as minimal deviation melanoma. The lesion does extend to the deep margin and wider excision is recommended.

 This case is not reportable. Based on the information provided, there is no definitive diagnosis of malignancy. Melanoma N/A 2007
20081079 Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Kidney: Is a case reportable if a biopsy diagnosis of "suggestive of oncocytoma, malignant neoplasm cannot be excluded" follows a CT scan that was read as "suspicious for carcinoma"? See Discussion. Pt is nursing home resident. CT abdomen/pelvis shows a "mass in the right kidney, highly suspicious for renal cell carcinoma". CT-guided needle biopsy performed with final diagnosis: "Neoplasm suggestive of oncocytoma. A malignant neoplasm cannot be excluded." No other information is available. This case is not reportable based on the information provided. The suspicious CT finding was biopsied and not proven to be malignant. "Suggestive of" is not a reportable ambiguous term. Kidney, renal pelvis N/A 2008
20000450 Primary Site--Esophagus: What is the difference between C15.5 [Lower third of esophagus] and C15.2 [Abdominal esophagus]? These descriptions represent the use of two different ways the esophagus can be divided anatomically. The two different systems used are illustrated in the SEER Self Instruction Manual for Tumor Registrars: Book 4. Assign the primary site code that describes the location of the tumor in the same way the tumor's location is described in the medical record. Esophagus Primary site 2000
20100058 Grade: Can the nuclear grade value be coded in the grade field for any site, or is it restricted to sites where it is specifically listed as an option in the coding manual, i.e., breast, kidney, urinary sites, etc.? There is no restriction on sites for which nuclear grade can be coded in the grade field. If both differentiation and nuclear grade are specified, differentiation takes priority. N/A N/A 2010
20110045 Reportability--Ovary: Is immature teratoma of the ovary reportable if a subsequent comment states that "the teratoma shows immature neuroepithelium, but no malignant elements"? There is conflicting information for this case. The final diagnosis conflicts with the comment. Go back and check with the physician to clarify his/her intent. If no further information can be obtained, the final diagnosis is preferred over the comment. This case is reportable based on the final diagnosis: "immature teratoma." Ovary N/A 2011
20110120 Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: How is this field coded for a BILATERAL nipple sparing mastectomy given that SINQ 20110094 indicates that a nipple sparing mastectomy should be coded to 30 [subcutaneous mastectomy] but there is no code for bilateral subcutaneous mastectomies? The Surgery of Primary Site field reflects the type of surgery performed on the primary site. In this case, a nipple sparing mastectomy should be coded to 30 [subcutaneous mastectomy]. If the details of the case indicate this is a single primary involving both breasts, code removal of involved contralateral breast under the data item Surgical Procedure/Other Site. Breast Surgery of Primary Site 2011
20021030 Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: Why was the decision made not to code all "3-component differentiation systems" the same way that Bloom-Richardson is coded? For example, SEER codes a low grade BR to 1 for the Differentiation field and a low grade for other grading systems to 2. See discussion. Our Pathologist Consultant agrees with SEER's guideline to code the Bloom-Richardson and B&R modifications of low, intermediate and high to 1, 2 and 3 respectively and thinks all 3-component systems should be coded that same way because it better represents the differentiation of the tumor. In his opinion, coding all other 3-component systems to a differentiation of 2, 3 and 4 respectively, is overstating the degree of differentiation. The rules for coding histology are approved and used by all of the major standard setters through agreements reached in the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee. This issue is under review by our medical advisors and a special committee. Changes will be taken to the Uniform Data Standards Committee for review and approval. N/A N/A 2002