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: 02/26/2026 13:24 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20071093 Reportability--Brain and CNS: In addition to Schwannoma, are there additional types of benign tumors that arise in peripheral nerves along the spinal cord that are not reportable? See Discussion.

Are neuroepitheliomatous neoplasms such as ganglioneuroma, gangliocytoma, ganglioglioma occurring along the spinal cord reportable? Are nerve sheath tumors such as neuroma occurring along the spinal cord reportable? Angioma?

Reference: SINQ 20051071; Primary Central Nervous System Tumors, NPCR Training Materials 2004

Reportability depends on the location of the tumor. Tumors in the following sites are reportable:

  • C700 - C709

  • C710 - C719

  • C720 - C729

  • C751 - C753

    • Benign and borderline tumors of the peripheral nerves (C47_), including peripheral nerves along the spinal cord, are not reportable.

    Please note: spinal schwannomas arising in the nerve root or spinal dura are reportable.

    		 2007
    		20071087 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries are abstracted when bilateral breasts contain DCIS? Is a physician statement referring to this situation as one primary ignored? See Discussion. Patient has microcalcifications both breasts. Has bilateral mastectomy. Path report states Left breast multifocal DCIS predominantly micropapillary. Right breast two foci of DCIS micropapillary.

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    There are two primaries in this case.

    Using the 2007 MP/H rules for breast, go to the multiple tumors module and start with Rule M4. Stop at rule M7. Tumors on both sides (right and left) are multple primaries.

    Always use the 2007 Multiple Primary rules to determine the number of primaries. Do not use the physician statement.

    		 2007
    		20071115 CS Tumor Size/CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: How do you code the CS Tumor size and SSF6 fields for a breast cancer described as "Paget disease with underlying intraductal carcinoma (4cm x 3.2cm)"?

    This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.CS Tumor Size: Assign code 040 for tumor size and code SSF6 as 050 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in CS TS]. The size of the invasive component is not stated AND proportions of in situ and invasive are not known.

    		 2007
    		20071127 Multiplicity Counter--Breast: How should the multiplicity counter be coded for a 3.8 cm infiltrating duct carcinoma with two "satellite nodules" measuring 5 mm and 7mm that are not described as either metastases or multiple foci? Include these nodules in the multiplicity counter because they are measured and are part of the final diagnosis on the pathology report. 2007
    		20071011 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted when each of multiple breast "re-excisions" performed more than two months apart in 2006 demonstrate intraductal carcinoma and there is no mention of "recurrence"? See Discussion.

    Right Breast

    06/27/2002 exc bx, DCIS. Margins involved.

    09/24/2002 re-exc, several foci of intraductal ca. Margins involved.

    10/15/2002 re-exc, microfocus of DCIS

    Radiation treatment started 11/18/2002.

    Is this 1, possibly 2, or maybe 3 breast primaries because of the 2 month rule and no statement of "recurrence"? Based on SINQ #20000478, this would be at least 2, but possible 3 primaries. Based on SINQ #20021143, this would be 1 primary if the case were diagnosed from 1998-2003. The excisions appear to represent wider excisions of the same tumor.

    For cases diagnosed prior to 2013:

    For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007, this is one primary, assuming these are wider excisions of the same tumor.

    For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

    		 2007
    		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. 2007
    		20071057 Primary Site/CS Extension--Lymphoma: How are these fields coded for a lymphoma found in the spleen and retroperitoneal lymph nodes? See Discussion. A patient presents with a 6-month history of night sweats, low grade fever and significant weight loss. Physical exam reveals no palpable lymph nodes, tender abdomen and splenomegaly. Patient undergoes an exploratory laparotomy with splenectomy and dissection of two retroperitoneal lymph nodes. Spleen and both lymph nodes were positive for small cleaved-cell lymphoma, high grade.

    Code the primary site to spleen.

    Code CS extension as 22 [involvement of spleen plus lymph nodes below the diaphragm]. This gives it a stage IIS.

    Spleen is an extranodal (not extralymphatic) site.

    The retroperitoneal lymph nodes are located below the diaphragm.

    		 2007
    		20071083 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Bladder/Renal Pelvis: Is a non-invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder diagnosed one year after the occurrence of an invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the renal pelvis reported as one or two primaries?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    This is a single primary with renal pelvis as primary site.

    Use the 2007 MP/H rules to determine if the 2007 diagnosis is a new primary. Use the Urinary rules, multiple tumors module. Start with rule M3. Follow the rules down to Rule M8 and stop. This is an example of implantation effect.

    		 2007
    		20071123

    MP/H Rules/Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Colon: Please clarify how to code diagnostic confirmation when there is no mention of a malignant polyp in the pathology report of a familial polyposis case given this statement: "Even if you have only one malignant polyp it is a single primary if there is a diagnosis of FAP. Even if there is no mention of a malignant polyp, if there is a diagnosis of FAP you will use this rule."

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    In the very unlikely event of a FAP diagnosis with no malignancy, the case would not be reportable.

    When FAP is diagnosed along with a colon malignancy, it is presumed that the malignancy originated in one of the numerous polyps, even if this is not explicitly stated. Use rule M3 for any colon malignancy (in a polyp, frank, or not stated) with a diagnosis of FAP and abstract as a single primary.

    		2007
    		20071056 Reportability/Terminology--Prostate: Is the diagnosis of "atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma" sufficient to report a prostate cancer if a note states that there is "insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy"? See Discussion.

    Date of report is July 2005. One positive specimen of 12.

    Specimen 6: Diagnosis = Prostate tissue with a small focus of atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma. Note. There is insufficient cytologic and/or architectural atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy. Negative basal cell staining with cytokeratin... in atypical glands is consistent with the diagnosis of suspicious for adenocarcinoma. In addition, the diagnosis is suppported by a positive staining for alpha-methyl COA racemase (P504S), a recently discovered marker that is preferentially expressed in prostate cancer...

    This case is reportable. The diagnosis states "suspicious for adenocarcinoma." "Suspicious for" is a reportable ambiguous term.

    The additional stains supported this "suspicious" diagnosis. A more definitive diagnosis could not be made based on this specimen.

    		 2007