SEER Inquiry System - Search

Venous angiomas (9122/0) are not reportable wherever they arise. The primary site for venous angioma arising in the cerebellum is C490.  The combination of 9122/0 and C490 is not reportable. Venous angioma is a venous abnormality, currently referred to as a developmental venous anomaly (DVA).

Vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia with no grade specified is not reportable. Reportability instructions have not changed. See page 11 in the SEER manual, http://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2015/SPCSM_2015_maindoc.pdf

We confirmed with our expert pathologist consultant that lymphovascular invasion and lymphovascular space invasion are synonymous.

We consulted an expert genitourinary pathologist who advises that micropapillary serous borderline tumor of the testis is reportable. He states "it is the same neoplasm as in the ovary. It arises from tissue (tunica vaginalis) surrounding the testis so is a paratesticular neoplasm." 

 Please note: not all borderline tumors are reportable and this diagnosis is an exception because it is assigned /2 in ICD-O-3.2. It is reportable for cases diagnosed Jan 1, 2021 and later.

We consulted with an expert GYN pathologist. He confirmed our thinking that endometrial stripe or thickening does not represent clinical tumor size. We will add this to a future edition of the SEER manual for reference.

We consulted with our expert hematopathologist who advised this is a single primary, Hodgkin lymphoma (9659/3).

The diagnosis from 5/14/2021 states NLPHL. It also states there is T-cell histiocyte rich large B-cell lymphoma-like transformation. The WHO Classification of Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues demonstrates six different patterns to NLPHL, which are: A) 'classical' nodular, B) serpiginous/interconnected nodular, C) nodular with prominent extra-nodular LP cells, D) T-cell-rich nodular, E) diffuse with a T-cell-rich background, and F) diffuse, B-cell-rich pattern.

In this case, they are describing a NLPHL type E (diffuse with a T-cell rich background). The term used is "T-cell histiocyte rich large B-cell lymphoma-LIKE transformation. "Like" as used here means that it is like a transformation; if it was NLPHL transforming to T-cell histiocyte rich large B-cell lymphoma, it would not have the word "like" in the diagnosis. This is a variant of NLPHL and not an actual transformation to another lymphoma. Even though NLPHL can transform to T-cell histiocyte rich large B-cell lymphoma, it is not the case here since the word "like" appears in the diagnosis.

We will update the histology in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Database to include these additional patterns.

We do not recommend using the size from a core biopsy for clinical tumor size. A core biopsy does not necessarily obtain enough tissue to know the actual tumor size. Since there is imaging for this patient, it is preferable to record clinical tumor size from the imaging report in this case.

The instructions will be clarified in the next revision of the SEER manual.

We recognize that the way clinicians and registrars speak is often different, and that the differences vary from region to region.

Our Medical Advisory Board reviewed the lists of ambiguous terminology before they were included in the third edition of the SEER EOD and the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2004. Since that time, specific terminology has been mandated for describing mammography results. We know some of these terms are discrepant with our ambiguous terminology list.

As of 2007, the standard setters (CoC, NPCR, SEER and CCCR) all use the same ambiguous terminology list. Changes to the list must be approved by the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee.

We recommend coding endometrium, C541, as the primary site for this case. While coding to fundus would not be incorrect, according to our expert pathologist consultant, "it is more appropriate in a setting in which the region of the uterus is of importance, e.g. with a myoma or a myosarcoma, or if the endometrioid carcinoma were NOT in the endometrium but arising in a focus of adenomyosis within the fundic myometrium."

We recommend that you contact the pathologist for further information. If no further information is available, do not accession this case based on the information provided. There is no definitive statement of malignancy.

If the case was sent to a consultant, there may be another opinion available. If there is information in the record, or the treating physician can be contacted, find out whether the tumor was benign or malignant and whether there was any further treatment.

According to our pathologist consultant, based only on the information above and nothing else, do not report since there is no diagnosis of malignancy.