Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20130134 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: According to the hematopoietic database, systemic mastocytosis is reportable; does that include INDOLENT systemic mastocytosis (which is not listed in the list of alternative names)? |
For cases diagnosed 2018 and forward, indolent systemic mastocytosis is not reportable (9741/1). Smoldering systemic mastocytosis is reportable (9741/3). |
2013 | |
|
|
20010019 | Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is the term "plasma cell dyscrasia" a synonym for multiple myeloma? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Plasma cell dyscrasia, NOS, is nonreportable. It is not a synonym for multiple myeloma. Plasma cell dyscrasia represents a broad spectrum of disease characterized by plasma cell proliferation that appears inappropriate or uncontrolled. Multiple myeloma is one disease type that falls into that classification. However, there are several other malignant and benign diseases also classified as such because of their immunoglobulin abnormalities. Reportability to SEER regarding a disease classified as a plasma cell dyscrasia is dependent on identifying the specific cell type associated with the disease in the ICD-O-3.
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. |
2001 | |
|
|
20021091 | Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Are the terms "thrombocytosis, NOS" and "thrombocythemia, NOS" non-reportable to SEER? See discussion. |
Our understanding from SEER about how to classify these types of clinical impressions for the 2001 and later reportable blood diseases is as follows: If we cannot prove that it is malignant, then we should be conservative and exclude the case for reporting to SEER. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:The terms "thrombocytosis, NOS" and "thrombocythemia, NOS" are not reportable to SEER. 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. |
2002 |
|
|
20140072 | Reportability--Head & Neck: Would this be reportable and if so what histology would be coded? Soft tissue mass left cheek excision reveals Carcinoma Ex Pleomorphic Adenoma Non-Invasive with focal vascular invasion. Margins clear. |
Carcinoma ex pleomorphic adenoma (Ca-ex-PA) is reportable. Assign 8941/3. The WHO classification of head and neck tumors defines Ca-ex-PA as an epithelial malignancy arising in a benign pleomorphic adenoma. Most of these originate in the parotid gland but can also arise in other salivary glands. |
2014 | |
|
|
20130092 | Reportability--Head & Neck: What are the correct site and histology codes if a glomus tympanicum tumor of the middle ear is reportable? |
Glomus tympanicum tumors of the middle ear are not reportable. The 2005 WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors classified these tumors as a borderline [/1] behavior and recorded them in the ICD-O-3 with histology code 8690 [glomus jugulare tumor, NOS]. According to WHO, "the distinction between jugular and tympanic paragangliomas can easily be made in the patient by modern imaging methods ... the jugular neoplasm is identified as arising from the jugular bulb region ... while the tympanic neoplasm is confined to the middle ear." Benign and borderline neoplasms of the middle ear [C301] are not reportable. The middle ear is not a reportable CNS site for benign and borderline tumors. |
2013 | |
|
|
20180009 | Reportability--Head & Neck: Is dentinoameloblastoma reportable, and if so, what is the correct histology code? See Discussion. |
Mixed odontogenic tumor consistent with dentinoameloblastoma, 9.5 cm, See Note: Tumor involves maxillary bone including hard palate, alveolar ridges, nasal cavities and maxillary sinuses bilaterally and buccal soft tissue. Lymphovascular invasion not identified. Perineural invasion not identified. Margins: Tumor involves right posterior bone (alveolar) margin. All other margins negative. Note: This is a rare hybrid tumor showing features of ameloblastoma producing pre-dentin/osteodentin matrix. Submucosal tumor is seen in the nasal cavities and palate. A congo red stain shows that the acellular dentin-like matrix fluoresces similar to collagen after polarization. Immunohistochemistry shows that the tumor cells are diffusely and strongly positive for p63, focally positive for CK19, and negative for CK5/6, SOX10, S100 and calretinin. |
Dentinoameloblastoma is not reportable. It is a variant of ameloblastoma which produces dentin and/or osteoid. It is benign. It can extend locally in a rather aggressive fashion, but is not given a malignant designation unless it metastasizes. |
2018 |
|
|
20210010 | Reportability--Head & Neck: Is chondrosarcoma, grade 1 reportable for cases diagnosed 01/01/2021 and later? See Discussion. |
Neither the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines nor the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Guidelines (including Tables 1-7) address reportability changes for chondrosarcoma grade 1. In the Solid Tumor Rules Manual, Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions, Table 7 (Tumors of Odontogenic and Maxillofacial Bone (Mandible, Maxilla)), Chrondrosarcoma grade 2/3 (9220/3) is included as a subtype/variant for sarcomas in these sites, but it does not address chrondrosarcoma, grade 1. The ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table lists Chondrosarcoma, grade 1 as morphology code 9222/1. If Chondrosarcoma, grade 1 is no longer a reportable tumor for cases diagnosed 01/01/2021 and later, why wasn't this reportability change included in the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines? If the standard setters chose not to include this reportability change, shouldn't Table 7 also indicate that all chondrosarcomas (NOS, grade 1, grade 2 or grade 3) are reportable for cases diagnosed 2018 and later? How are registrars to make reportability and histology coding decisions for chondrosarcomas when neither source provides clear instructions regarding these tumors? |
Chrondrosarcoma, grade 1 (9222/1) is not reportable according to the Reportability section in the 2021 SEER Manual. The histology (9222/1) is listed in ICD-O-3.2 as a synonym for atypical cartilaginous tumor (preferred term). In general, the tables do not include non-reportable terms and codes. Registrars should refer to their standard setter (to whom they submit data) for reportable neoplasms. Currently, /0 and /1 neoplasms are reportable for central nervous system sites only. ICD-O-3.2 includes all neoplasms but that does not mean they are reportable. If a facility collects non-malignant neoplasms, use the corresponding ICD-O code in 3.2. |
2021 |
|
|
20160020 | Reportability--Gallbladder: Is high grade biliary intraepithelial neoplasia of the gallbladder reportable? |
High grade biliary intraepithelial neoplasia of the gallbladder is reportable. Assign code 8148/2. It is also known as biliary intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3, or BilIN-3. |
2016 | |
|
|
20200056 | Reportability--Gallbladder: Is Intracholecystic papillary neoplasm (ICPN) with low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia reportable? The primary site is gallbladder. |
Intracholecystic papillary neoplasm (ICPN) with low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia is not reportable. The WHO assigns a behavior of 0 to these neoplasms. |
2020 | |
|
|
20140088 | Reportability--GIST: The 2014 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual and the answer to SINQ 20100014 appear to conflict with respect to reporting GIST cases. The manual states (p.5, exception 1) that we are to accession the case if the patient is treated for cancer. However, the patient in Example #7 in the SINQ discussion is receiving chemotherapy, but is deemed not reportable. This is a problematic issue in our area, as pathologists prefer using the NCCN “Risk Stratification of Primary GIST by Mitotic Index, Size and Site” table rather than stating whether the tumor is benign or malignant. Although they tell us that moderate or high risk should receive treatment, they will not characterize them as malignant. |
Determining reportability for GIST is problematic because of the reluctance of pathologists to use the term "malignant" for GIST cases. If you can document the pathologist's terminology and case characteristics (e.g. treatment) that correspond to "malignant" for your registry as part of the registry's policies and procedures, you can report those cases as malignant.
The exception cited above in the SEER manual pertains to a clinical diagnosis with a negative pathology report. Normally, the negative pathology report would override the clinical diagnosis and the case would not be reportable. However, if the patient is treated for a malignancy in spite of the negative pathology, report the case.
|
2014 |
An official website of the United States government
