SEER Inquiry System - Search

Are any of the following cases reportable?

Example 1: Clinical Diagnosis: Extradural spinal cord tumor compatible with schwannoma. What assumptions should be made about reportability if the tumor is described as being extradural? The extradural spinal cord includes epidural fat surrounding the thecal sac and exiting nerve roots. Does this mean there are not nerve roots in the extradural spinal cord?

Example 2: Final Pathologic Diagnosis: Designated "C3-4 nerve sheath tumor" excision: Morphologic and immunohistochemical findings consistent with cellular schwannoma. When stated to be a "nerve sheath tumor" does that mean peripheral nerve (C47_) involvement or nerve root (C72_) involvement?

Example 3: Final Pathologic Diagnosis: T-8 vertebral tumor resection: Schwannoma with degenerative changes (calcification, cyst formation) - ganglion and nerve are identified. There is no mention clinically or pathologically whether this tumor is "intradural" or "of the nerve root." In the absence of information about whether the location of the tumor is intradural or involving the nerve root, is it assumed that it does involve this part of the spinal cord when a specific vertebrae is removed?

Per SINQ 20091021 and 20021151, GIST cases are not reportable unless they are stated to be malignant. A pathologist or clinician must confirm the diagnosis of cancer. There are cases that are not stated to be malignant in the pathology report or confirmed as such by a clinician; however, these cases do have information that for other primary sites would typically be taken into consideration when determining reportability. The final diagnosis on the pathology report for all 16 cases is "GIST." The additional comment(s) for each of the 16 different cases is reported below. Are any of the following cases reportable?

1) Pathology report indicates that the bulk of the tumor is submucosal. It extends through the muscularis propria and abuts the serosa.

2) Pathology report states tumor extends to serosal surface of transverse colon, but not into muscularis propria. CD 117 and CD 34 are positive.

3) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades through the gastric wall to the serosal surface.

4) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades pericolic fat tissue.

5) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate omental caking.

6) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate hepatic metastases. Hepatic metastases are not biopsied.

7) Tumor stated to be unresectable and extends into pancreas. Chemotherapy given.

8) Pathology report states tumor is low to intermediate grade and involves serosal (visceral peritoneum).

9) Tumor size is 17.5 cm. Pathology report states "malignant risk".

10) Pathology report states tumor "into muscularis propria" or tumor "involves muscularis propria" or "infiltrates into muscularis propria".

11) Pathology report states, "high malignant potential; omentum inv by tumor." It is not stated in path report or final diagnosis to be malignant GIST.

12) Pathology report states that tumor arises from wall of small bowel and extends into thin serosal surface.

13) Pathology report states minimal invasion of lamina propria; does not penetrate muscularis propria.

14) Pathology report states, "high mitotic activity >10/50 HPF; high risk for aggressive behavior; moderate malignant potential."

15) Pathology report states tumor size is >5 cm. Intermediate risk for aggressive behavior; CD117+ KIT exon 11+.

16) Pathology report states "high risk of malignancy."

Do DCO cases have default values for the Multiplicity Counter and Multiple Tumor Reported as One Primary fields? Should these fields be coded as 88 or 99?

In the data item pages for these fields, there is only a reference to see the NAACCR Death Clearance Manual. However, this manual does not provide an answer. There is guidance to use code 88 for unknown primaries but we noticed that SEER edits skip enforcing this requirement for DCO cases (see SEER IF205 and 206).