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: 10/26/2025 11:25 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20051127 Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is an "intradural extramedullary schwannoma (neurilemoma)" of the spine reportable? See Discussion.

Example: Pt underwent laminectomy and excision of intradural extramedullary tumor.

Is there a default decision for tumors described as intradural extramedullary tumors, NOS?

For cases diagnosed 2011 and later:

A spinal "intradural extramedullary schwannoma (neurilemoma)" is reportable. This schwannoma originated in the spinal nerve root, C720.

See #2 under Reportability in the Data Collection Answers from the CoC, NPCR, SEER Technical Workgroup,

http://www.seer.cancer.gov/registrars/data-collection.html#reportability

2005
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
20150050

Reportability: Is penile intraepithelial neoplasia, differentiated type, reportable? See discussion.

Foreskin circumcision shows: Penile intraepithelial neoplasia, differentiated type (differentiated PeIN). If reportable, how would the histology and behavior be coded? Is this behavior /2?

For cases diagnosed 2018 and later

Differentiated penile intraepithelial neoplasia (differentiated PeIN), is reportable (8071/2).

Please note: Penile intraepithelial neoplasia, grade 3 (PeIN 3) is also reportable to SEER (C600-C609, 8077/2).

 2015
20130185

Reportability/Behavior: Is HGSIL (high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion) of the vulva or vagina reportable and is it a synonym for histology code 8077/2 [squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III]?

For cases diagnosed 2018 and later

HGSIL of the vulva or vagina is reportable. HGSIL is a synonym for squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III.

 2013
20130022

Reportability--Melanoma: Is "early" melanoma reportable? See Discussion.

Because "evolving" melanoma was never reportable, this issue only relates to "early" melanoma.

For cases diagnosed 2018 to 2020, early or evolving melanoma is not reportable.

Evolving melanoma (borderline evolving melanoma): Evolving melanoma are tumors of uncertain biologic behavior. Histological changes of borderline evolving melanoma are too subtle for a definitive diagnosis of melanoma in situ. The tumors may be described as "proliferation of atypical melanocytes confined to epidermal and adnexal epithelium," "atypical intraepidermal melanocytic proliferation, "atypical intraepidermal melanocytic hyperplasia"; or "severe melanocytic dysplasia." Not reportable.

Melanoma Solid Tumor Rules, 2018, page 3, https://seer.cancer.gov/tools/solidtumor/Melanoma_STM.pdf

 2013
20120081

Reportability: Is VIN II-III reportable?

For cases diagnosed 2021 and later

VIN II-III is reportable based on ICD-O-3.2 which lists squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II as 8077/2 making it reportable. Also see SINQ 20120094.

 2012
20200076

Reportability/Solid Tumor Rules (2018)--Kidney: Should clarification (Notes) be added to Table 1 of the 2018 Kidney Solid Tumor Rules regarding the use of clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma (8323) and sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma (8312) as these histologies conflict with the ICD-O-3.2? See Discussion.

First, reportability of clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma changed from 8323/3 to 8323/1. Although it does not appear the standard-setters implemented this change, note of the conflict between the ICD-O-3.2 and the Solid Tumor Rules (STR) is not included in the Implementation Guidelines or STR. The current Note for clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma (8323) was left in Table 1, so this presumably is still reportable. It would be helpful if the conflict with ICD-O-3.2 was addressed, especially since the existing Note refers to changes made back in 2016 (not 2018 or 2021).

Second, is the term sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma still coded as a synonym for renal cell carcinoma (8312) because sarcomatoid is referring to a pattern of differentiation or 8318 (renal cell carcinoma, sarcomatoid)? The STR, Table 1, lists sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma as 8312, but the ICD-O-3.2 lists this as 8318. The Note in Table 1 still indicates WHO/IARC and College of American Pathologists agree that sarcomatoid carcinoma is a pattern of differentiation, not a specific subtype, of renal cell carcinoma. This appears to conflict with WHO/IARC ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table as it provides a different, specific histology code for this malignancy. How can WHO/IARC classify this both a pattern of renal cell carcinoma and a separate, specific histology?

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

For cases diagnosed 2021 or later, use ICD-O-3.2 to determine reportability. Use the Solid Tumor Rules to determine the number of primaries to report and the histology to code for tumors that are reportable. Do not use the Solid Tumor Rules to determine reportability.

ICD-O-3.2 was implemented by the North American standard setters as of 1/1/2021 and it is the basis for reportability for cases diagnosed as of 1/1/21. See 1.a on page 6 in the 2021 SEER manual, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2021/SPCSM_2021_MainDoc.pdf

WHO 4th edition Tumors of the Urinary System has proposed ICD-O code 8323/1 for clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma. This has not been approved for implementation by the standard setters. Continue assigning 8323/3 for clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma.

Sarcomatoid RCC is listed as a synonym for RCC 8312/3. This is correct per WHO and our SME. Do NOT code sarcomatoid RCC to 8318/3. 

 2020
20120094

Reportability: Given that per the 2012 SEER Manual and SINQ 20120081 VIN II-III is no longer reportable, does this change exclusively apply to VIN II-III or does it also apply to AIN II-III, VAIN II-III, etc.? See Discussion.

VIN II-III was a reportable condition in the past. There was a SINQ note to that effect which is now gone from the system. Would it be better to reactivate that note and put a date reference in it so that there is documentation available to confirm this disease (and other IN II-III diseases) was previously reportable? If the note is not reactivated, could there be some indication in SINQ 20120081 of the prior reportability of this disease process?

For cases diagnosed 2021 or later, VIN II-III is reportable. Similarly, AIN II-III, VAIN II-III, etc. are reportable. For cases diagnosed 2021 or later, the primary resource for reportability is ICD-O-3.2. Squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II is listed in ICD-O-3.2 as 8077/2 making it reportable. This applies to the various sites of intraepithelial neoplasia grade II including anus, vulva, and vagina.

 2012
20150037

Reportablility--Breast: Is lobular neoplasia reportable as lobular carcinoma in situ? See Discussion.

According to College of American Pathologists (CAP), lobular neoplasia is also known as lobular carcinoma in situ. In a previous SEER question 20041089, it was stated that they were not the same and should not be reported unless it was a Grade 3. I assume this has changed and we are to report lobular neoplasia as lobular carcinoma in situ, is this correct?

For cases diagnosed 2021 or later

Lobular neoplasia (LN II and LN III) and lobular intraepithelial neoplasia (LIN II and LIN III) are reportable and coded 8520/2.

 2015
20250015

Solid Tumor Rules/Behavior--Brain and CNS: Why was the Behavior of solitary fibrous tumor (SFT)/hemangiopericytoma, WHO Grade 1 changed from /0 to /1 in the 2025 Solid Tumor Rules (STR) updates? See Discussion.

In previous STR versions and the ICD-O-3.2, SFT/hemangiopericytoma, WHO G1 is 8815/0 and only SFT/hemangiopericytoma, WHO G2 was 8815/1. However, Table 6 (Non-Malignant CNS, Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtypes/Variants) was changed in the 2025 updates to indicate both G1 and G2 SFT/hemangiopericytoma are 8815/1.

No date range was provided for this change in the STR and the behavior of this tumor was not updated by the standard setters in other references (i.e., ICD-O-3.2). The behavior of G1 SFT/hemangiopericytoma was not updated in the 2025 ICD-O-3.2 updates. If the ICD-O-3.2 was the source of this change, should this have been documented in the 2025 NAACCR Implementation Guidelines? However, the 2025 NAACCR Implementation Guidelines indicates, "There are no ICD-O-3 changes for 2025." Is this behavior change in 2025 Solid Tumor Rules updates an error? Should the behavior of SFT/hemangiopericytoma, WHO G1 remain /0? 

For cases diagnosed 2025 and later: Assign behavior /1 for solitary fibrous tumor unless stated to be malignant.

A review by the Cancer PathCHART expert neuropathologists found behavior code /0 is incorrect and both solitary fibrous tumor grade 1 and grade 2 are coded as 8815/1. WHO Classification of Central Nervous System Tumors, 5th edition, assigns behavior as /1 and no longer recommends terms solitary fibrous tumor/hemagiopericytoma and hemagiopericytoma. The STR table is correct. Future updates to ICD-O should reflect this behavior.

WHO Classification of Tumours, Central Nervous System Tumours, 5th ed. was reviewed by the CPC expert pathologists for implementation for cases diagnosed January 1, 2025. 

Reminder: Comparing the CPC Validity Status included in the 2024 CPC*Search to that included in the 2025 SMVL (that table that drives the edits) is incorrect. CNS Tumors were not reviewed for 2024 implementation, they were reviewed for 2025 implementation. There will be a 2025 CPC*Search and a /1 will be designated as a Valid.   

 2025