SEER Inquiry System - Search

Please comment on these specific scenarios.

1. A prostate biopsy is suspicious for adenocarcinoma, but the urologist is not considering this malignant, nor is the urologist treating for malignancy, but there is no clear statement from the physician that this is not reportable.  Should this case be abstracted?
2. A prostate biopsy is suspicious for adenocarcinoma, and there is a statement by the physician that this is not yet malignant. Should this case be abstracted?
3. Prostate MRI with PIRADS 4 or 5; however, the treating urologist does not call this malignant and is not treating patient for prostate cancer.  [Example: 2024 Prostate MRI - PI-RADS 4. Follow up with Urologist states patient to repeat Prostate MRI in 1 year and continue with yearly PSA levels and there is no mention of prostate cancer other than the PI-RADS score]. Should this case be abstracted?

SINQ 20091103 states that prostate biopsies showing “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” are NOT reportable. However, SINQ 20071056 states that “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable. This appears to be an issue of semantics with no clearly outlined method to determine reportability of such cases.

We have two recent cases with similar semantic issues and want to know whether they are reportable.

1) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation, highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma, with quality/quantity insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer.”

2) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma but due to the small size of focus, findings are not definitively diagnostic.”

ACR website:

Category 4: Lesions that do not have the characteristic morphologies of breast cancer but have a definite probability of being malignant.

Category 5: lesions have a high probability of being cancer.

Example: An MRI Spine showed a large expansile mass arising from the sella turcica and extending into the suprasellar cistern, but the radiologist only noted: The leading differential considerations include pituitary macroadenoma or a large suprasellar base meningioma. The patient was subsequently pathologically diagnosed with a pituitary adenoma. It is unclear if the diagnosis date should be coded to the MRI date.

There are two existing SINQ questions regarding the term consider. SINQ 20061094 confirms a diagnosis that is considered to be is reportable because it is unambiguous, but SINQ 20081033 states the phrase malignancy is highly considered is not a reportable ambiguous term.

How should we interpret differential considerations? If differential considerations is equivalent to a differential diagnosis, then this patient was clinically diagnosed on imaging. However, if differential considerations is not reportable, then there was no diagnosis prior to the resection.

Is this histologic terminology synonymous with 8071/2 Differentiated-type vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia?

Per the 7/20/2018 updates to the 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology list, the reportability flag was changed from N to Y for Differentiated-type vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia as well as Differentiated penile intraepithelial neoplasia, both 8071/2. It appears that both SINQ 20180020 and the second half of SINQ 20160069 are no longer valid and should be deleted.

The note explains: The International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD) in 2004 revised its classification of VIN by eliminating VIN 1 and combining VIN 2 and VIN 3 into a single category (see table below). Classification of VIN (usual type) ISSVD [International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease]1986 classification 2004 classification VIN 1 VIN2 VIN3 VIN Note: VIN 2 and VIN 3 combined into single [non-graded] category, VIN Reference: Scurry J and Wilkinson EJ.  Review of terminology of precursors of vulvar squamous cell carcinoma. Journal of lower genital tract disease, 2006; 10(3):  161-169

In comparison to SINQ 20180022, this case does not mention VIN III anywhere in the final diagnosis. Is any mention of HGSIL in the final diagnosis reportable, even if it is qualified with a non-reportable term in parenthesis or CAP protocol?

The term "non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features" is now being used, instead of the previous classification of an encapsulated malignant thyroid tumor. Recent evidence supports a very minimal risk of aggressive behavior for these tumors, and pathologists in our area are no longer classifying these as malignant in the final diagnosis.