Reportability/Behavior--Skin: Is an "atypical fibroxanthoma (superficial malignant fibrous histiocytoma)" with an ICDO-3 histology code of 8830 reportable with a behavior code of 3 or is it nonreportable with a behavior code of 1?
Yes, "atypical fibroxanthoma (superficial malignant fibrous histiocytoma)" is reportable. The information in parentheses provides more detail and confirms a reportable malignancy.
Reportability/Behavior--Paraganglia: Is a 2021+ diagnosis of paraganglioma reportable if the grading of adrenal pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (GAPP) score falls outside the stated requirements for malignancy? See Discussion.
Patient was diagnosed with a retroperitoneal paraganglioma on April 2021 mass resection. Final diagnosis included the comment: Based on the modified grading of adrenal pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (GAPP), the GAPP score is 1. Scores greater than or equal to 3 are malignant.
We are aware that paraganglioma is classified as malignant for cases diagnosed in 2021+, however it is unclear how the pathologist's interpretation of the GAPP score may affect the behavior of this case.
Report retroperitoneal paraganglioma based on ICD-O-3.2 histology/behavior that lists paraganglioma, NOS as 8680/3 for cases diagnosed 2021 and forward. While GAPP is a predictor of metastatic potential, it does not factor into behavior, thus reportability.
Reportability/Behavior--Ovary: Is adult granulosa cell tumor a reportable malignant tumor if the primary ovarian tumor ruptured intraoperatively, the peritoneum was contaminated, and the patient underwent adjuvant treatment with chemotherapy given the increased risk of recurrence due to intraoperative tumor spill? See Discussion.
Per SINQ 20130176 and 20140034, adult granulosa cell tumors of the ovary are reportable malignant tumors when there are peritoneal implants or metastases. The SINQ responses describe how these adult granulosa cell tumors are different from low malignant potential (LMP) epithelial ovarian tumors. Would these SINQ scenarios apply to a case with intraoperative tumor rupture that resulted in peritoneal tumor?
In this case, the pathologist indicated these excised peritoneal specimens were favored to be intraoperative contamination with adult granulosa cell tumor. However, the oncologist went on to treat this patient as high risk with chemotherapy. The oncologist only described one of the pelvic peritoneal implants as possibly contamination due to the rupture. The oncologist never indicated the tumors were definitely peritoneal implants. Should the behavior of this tumor be /1 because the peritoneal tumor appears to be contamination, or /3 because the oncologist treated this patient as high risk?
If the "implants" were due to intraoperative contamination and were not present prior to surgery, do not interpret them as indicative of malignancy. The behavior of this tumor is /1.
Reportability/Behavior--Kidney: Is a 2022 diagnosis of “clear cell renal cell papillary tumor” on nephrectomy reportable? See Discussion.
We are aware that the WHO 4th edition for urinary tumors has changed the behavior of “clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma” to /1 but registries are to continue collecting as /3.
While the diagnosis in our case is stated as “tumor” it does seem like the pathologist may be using the new WHO terminology of “tumor” rather than “carcinoma,” so we are not sure if behavior is /3 or /1.
Report clear cell renal cell papillary tumor (CCRCPT), formerly classified as clear cell renal cell papillary carcinoma, and assign code 8323/3 until this new term and code (8323/1) have been adopted by standard setters.
The Kidney Solid Tumor Rules advise to code clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma as 8323/3. WHO Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs, 4th ed., has reclassified this histology as a /1. This change has not yet been implemented and it remains reportable.
WHO Classification of Urinary and Male Genital Tumors, 5th ed., has since reclassified clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma as CCRCPT (8323/1). The name change was made because there have been no reports of metastatic events for this indolent tumor. The term clear cell renal cell papillary carcinoma is no longer recommended.
Reportability/Behavior Code--Melanoma: If a dermatologist states a "proliferation of atypical melanocytes confined to epidermis" is melanoma in situ, is it reportable to SEER?
For this case only, it is reportable to SEER because the physician states that it is "melanoma in situ."
The phrase "proliferation of atypical melanocytes confined to epidermis" alone is not reportable to SEER. This phrase means that there are a number of (proliferation) pigmented cells (melanocytes) not showing the normal cell structure (atypical).
Reportability/AmbiguousTerminology: Because there is a caveat in the SEER PCM, 3rd edition to ignore adverbs such as "strongly" when assessing reportability, should a term such as "likely" cancerous be reportable given than the expression "most likely" cancerous is reportable?
"Likely cancerous" is NOT reportable.
The CoC, NPCR and SEER have agreed to a strict interpretation of the ambiguous terms list. Terms that do not appear on the list are not diagnostic of cancer.
Reportability/Ambiguous terminology--Bone: Is a case reportable when the imaging described a left first rib mass as ? See Discussion.
The radiologist noted the mass was most compatible with a chondroid lesion, which is not reportable on its own, but can the subsequent term be used to accession this as reportable if only one malignant etiology is provided by the radiologist? Or does the statement imply that this is only one of several possible etiologies?
Review this case with the involved physicians to determine their opinion on the bone mass. Review the plans for further evaluation and treatment (if any) to determine whether the physicians view this case as a chondroid lesion, chondrosarcoma, or something else.
If it is not possible to obtain further information, do not report the case at this time. If further information becomes available, review the case again for reportability.
Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology: When the only source of information states the diagnosis as two terms, one reportable and one non-reportable, separated by a "slash" (/), should we report the case using the reportable term? See Discussion.
For example:
-ultrasound of the right eye: consistent with a nevoma/melanoma; we could not find any indication that nevoma is a reportable term
-bladder biopsy pathology report: severe urothelial dysplasia/carcinoma in situ (CIS)
As a central registry, we receive some limited information cases like this where there is no record of treatment or possibility to follow-back to physicians for clarification, so we want to make sure we are reporting them correctly.
If possible, try to obtain further information.
If no further information can be obtained, accession the case using the reportable term, melanoma and CIS in the respective examples, when there is a single report in which both reportable and non-reportable diagnostic terms are listed with a slash and there is no other information. Most often, the slash indicates the terms are being used synonymously.
Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology/Date of Diagnosis: If a "suspicious" cytology is reportable only when a later positive biopsy or a physician's clinical impression of cancer supports the cytology findings, is the Date of Diagnosis field coded to the later confirmation date rather than to the date of the suspicious cytology? Is a suspicious "biopsy" handled the same way?
Cytology reported as "suspicious" is not reportable. If the physician confirms the suspicious cytology by making a clinical diagnosis of malignancy, the Date of Diagnosis field is coded to the date of the clinical diagnosis, which may or may not be same date the cytology was performed.
Without supporting clinical documentation, the case will remain non-reportable and will not be submitted to SEER. The supporting documentation can be a physician's statement that the patient has cancer, a scan or procedure that identifies cancer, or a positive biopsy.
Suspicious "biopsies" are reportable according to SEER's list of ambiguous terms. Suspicious "cytologies" without supporting clinical statements are not.
An official website of the United States government
Home