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: 10/07/2026 19:15 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
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.

 N/A N/A 2012
20150044

Reportability--Ovary: Is micropapillary serous carcinoma (MPSC) of the ovary reportable? What are the differences between “noninvasive" and “low malignant potential?"  See discussion.

Pathology report reads left ovary: noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC), fragmented; right ovarian excrescence and posterior cul-de-sac: noninvasive implants identified; right ovary: noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC), scattered autoimplants (noninvasive); tumor is present on ovarian surface, noninvasive autoimplants

Noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC) of the ovary is reportable. Assign code 8460/2, applying the ICD-O-3 matrix concept to this noninvasive carcinoma. Noninvasive can be used as a synonym for in situ, ICD-O-3 behavior code /2. See page 66 in the softcover ICD-O-3. Low malignant potential (LMP) means that the neoplasm is not malignant, but has some chance of behaving in a malignant fashion. LMP can be used as a synonym for ICD-O-3 behavior code /1, see page 66.

Ovary N/A 2015
20061040 Reportability--Anus: Is a final diagnosis on a pathology report of "squamous cell carcinoma of the anus, NOS" assumed to be a skin of anus primary or a primary of the anus? Squamous cell carcinoma of the anus is reportable unless known or stated to be skin of anus. N/A N/A 2006
20031007 EOD Extension--Lung: Do we ignore pericardial effusion seen on a CXR if a subsequent lobectomy reveals only a localized tumor? See discussion. Note 6 in the lung EOD scheme instructs us to assume that a pleural effusion is negative if a resection is done. Does this also apply to a pericardial effusion? For example, if a pericardial effusion is seen on CXR, and a subsequent lobectomy reveals only a localized tumor, should the effusion be ignored? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Ignore pericardial effusion which is negative for tumor. Assume that a pericardial effusion is negative if a resection is done and the tumor is pathologically confirmed to be localized. Lung N/A 2003
20130015 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is essential thrombocytopenia reportable? See Discussion. Many times essential thrombocytopenia has been coded based on blood counts. Sometimes the discharge summary states thrombocytosis (NOS), and the case is coded to essential thrombocytopenia. Are these cases reportable?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

The following are not alternative names for any reportable disease process:

  • Essential thrombocytopenia

  • Reactive thrombocytosis

  • Thrombocythemia

  • Thrombocytopenia

  • Thrombocytosis

    • The diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia is based on blood counts, but is usually a diagnosis made by excluding other myelodysplastic disorders. The following are reportable disease processes:

    • Essential thrombocythemia (9962/3)

  • Essential thrombocytosis (9962/3)

  • Refractory thrombocytopenia (9992/3)

    • SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

    		Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms N/A 2013
    		20021003 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Whenever two hollow organs are diagnosed simultaneously with the same histology, one being invasive and the other in situ, can one assume that mucosal spread has occurred and that this situation represents one primary? In the absence of a physician statement, how do you determine mucosal spread from one organ to another?

    For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

    Yes, this type of situation represents one primary. A tumor that is breaking down can be invasive in the center with in situ cancer at the margins. Occasionally the in situ margin can move into a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium.

    Physicians may describe mucosal spread in various manners. You will see the terms "intramucosal extension," "in situ component extending to," or statements of an invasive component in one organ, with adjacent/associated in situ carcinoma in a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium. A frequent example of this process is bladder cancer extending into the prostatic urethra via mucosal spread.

    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.

    		 N/A N/A 2002
    		20140034

    Reportability--Ovary: Can you clarify when widely metastatic borderline histologies of the ovary and various other sites are reportable? See discussion.

    SINQ 20130176 states that an adult granulosa cell tumor of the ovary with metastases is malignant. However, SINQ 20091087 states that a borderline tumor of the appendix with metastasis is not reportable.

    The first statement of 20130176 “though granulosa cell tumor is coded 8620/1, the presence of peritoneal or lymph node metastases indicate the tumor is malignant and coded as /3” does not coincide with the second statement of “the behavior of borderline/LMP ovarian epithelial tumors is determined by the ovarian primary, even though there may be peritoneal implants or metastatic disease in the lymph nodes”. If the ovarian metastases do make this a reportable malignancy, can this line of thinking be used to determine reportability for borderline histologies for other sites such as the appendix?

    The case in 20130176 is adult granulosa cell tumor. The answer points out an important difference in the way "metastases" from this histology should be interpreted versus low malignant potential ovarian epithelial tumors. Metastases from adult granulosa cell tumor of the ovary indicates a malignant primary. So-called metastases from a LMP epithelial tumor do not indicate a malignant primary when the metastatic deposits are also LMP/borderline in behavior.

    Do not apply instructions for ovarian cases to other primary sites including appendix.

    		Ovary N/A 2014
    		20130023

    Reportability--Brain and CNS: Why has reportability changed for "intradural extramedullary schwannomas"? Are all "spinal" schwannomas reportable or only those stated to be "intradural"? See Discussion.

    If intradural schwannomas are to be collected for cases diagnosed 2011 and later, why were they not included in the 2012 SEER Manual? Should collection of spinal schwannomas be postponed until the next revision of the MP/H Rules?

    The reportability of schwannomas was not initially agreed upon by the standard setters. After the issue was discussed by the CoC, NPCR and SEER Technical Workgroup and an agreement was reached. 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.

    The most accurate and most current instruction is to report these spinal tumors when they arise within the spinal dura or spinal nerve roots, or when they are stated to be "intradural" or "of the nerve root." Do not report these tumors when they arise in the peripheral nerves. The peripheral nerves are the portion of nerve extending beyond the spinal dura.

    Spinal cord intradural schwannomas originate in spinal nerve roots. Spinal nerve root is best classified as spinal cord, C720.

    		Brain and CNS N/A 2013
    		20130029 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is "post polycythemic myelofibrosis" reportable? See Discussion. The bone marrow biopsy showed post polycythemic myelofibrosis. JAK2 mutations were present confirming the diagnosis of post polycythemic myelofibrosis. The patient does have a history of polycythemia vera (PV).

    For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

    Polycythemia Vera (PV) [9950/3] is reportable. The Abstractor Notes section in the Hematopoietic Database for PV indicates there are three phases of PV. The third phase is referred to as the "spent" or "post-polycythemic myelofibrosis phase". This patient appears to be in the third phase of PV. This would not be reported as a new primary if PV has already been reported.

    SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

    		Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms N/A 2013
    		20021082

    Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Primary site/EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: How many primaries are represented by an invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the floor of mouth with in situ squamous cell carcinoma involvement of the frenulum?

    For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

    Code the Primary Site field to C04.9 [floor of mouth]. Because the cancer did not INVADE into a neighboring site (through wall, through soft tissue), it just spread along the mucosa (in situ) to involve the frenulum, this is one primary.

    For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, in situ extension via mucosal spread to the frenulum is ignored for purposes of coding EOD-Extension.

    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.

    		 Head & Neck N/A 2002