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: 05/26/2026 03:00 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
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
20180023

Reportability/Behavior: Is myxoinflammatory fibroblastic sarcoma (MIFS) reportable for 2018? This histology is on the 2018 ICD-O-3 histology update list with a behavior code of /1. See discussion.

This will be a tough one for registrars to recognize as non-reportable since the terminology contains sarcoma, so we just want to double check.

Myxoinflammatory fibroblastic sarcoma (MIFS) (C49._), 8811/1, is not reportable for 2018 based on the 2018 ICD-O-3 New Codes, Behaviors, and Terms list. This is a new histology/behavior not previously listed in ICD-O-3. According to the WHO 4th Ed Tumors of Soft Tissue & Bone, this histology has been given a benign (/1) behavior; however, if the pathologist and/or physician state the tumor is malignant or metastatic, report the case and assign behavior code /3.

 2018
20150003

Reportability/Behavior: Is the following reportable, and if so, what is the histology code? Final Diagnosis (on multiple conjunctive excisions): Conjunctiva - primary acquired melanosis with atypia (see note). Note: "In all 3 specimens the process extends to the margins of excision. Complete extirpation is recommended (primary acquired melanosis with atypia is considered melanoma in situ).

Do not report primary acquired melanosis with atypia.

According to our expert pathologist consultant, "There has been a lot of debate in the literature about the diagnostic criteria, terminology, and natural history of primary acquired melanosis [PAM]. Your case comes down squarely on the main issue, which is whether PAM with atypia should be regarded as melanoma in situ. In most studies it appears that PAMs with no atypia or mild atypia do not progress to melanoma, and only a small percentage of those with severe atypia do so."  "PAM, even with atypia, is not melanoma in situ, and should not be reported."

For further information, see this article for a review of a large number of patients: Shields, Jerry A, Shields, Carol L, et al. Primary Acquired Melanosis of the Conjunctiva: Experience with 311 Eyes. Trans. Am Ophthalmol Soc 105:61-72, Dec 2007.

 

2015
20250007

Reportability/Behavior: Our registry collects some borderline (behavior /1) cases that are not reportable to SEER or any other standard setters. Can we assign a behavior code of /2 to these cases?

Do not assign a behavior code of /2 to these cases unless you have a way to flag them so that they are not reported to the standard setters as in situ cases. Work with your state central registry to ensure that these cases are not unintentionally included in state case submission.

 2025
20200020

Reportability/Brain and CNS--Pituitary: Can a clinical diagnosis of pituitary adenoma be accessioned based on imaging if treatment is not given and subsequent imaging years later shows no evidence of pituitary adenoma? See Discussion.

The patient was clinically diagnosed with a pituitary adenoma on MRI in June 2009. The MRI noted an unusual contour involving the superior margin of the pituitary gland and the clinical interpretation was a small pituitary adenoma. The patient did not follow-up with the recommended repeat imaging and never received treatment for the pituitary adenoma.

The patient was eventually seen again in January 2020 and the MRI showed no adenoma in the pituitary gland. Since pituitary adenomas are known to spontaneously regress, should the 2009 diagnosis of pituitary adenoma be accessioned as a SEER reportable benign central nervous system (CNS) tumor?

Pituitary adenoma is reportable even if it later regresses without treatment. Use text fields to record the details of this case.

 2020
20170071

Reportability/Brain and CNS: Is incidentaloma reportable from brain and central nervous system (CNS) imaging? See Discussion.

We are seeing the term "incidentaloma" on magnetic resonance imaging (MR) reports of head and also with physician statements. For example, this MR of the head: Impression--Suboptimal study due to motion degradation. Heterogeneously enhancing pituitary gland without evidence of acute abnormality. A 3 mm focus of relative hypoenhancement in the left gland is favored to represent an incidentaloma. Advise correlation with clinical findings.

Also, there are cases where the scans show meningioma and then at a later date it is stated to be an incidentaloma in physician notes.

Is the term "incidentaloma" alone reportable, if the term "tumor" for CNS cases is never stated? When I googled the term, it is stated to mean "tumor."

The term "incidentaloma" alone is not reportable. Look for a reportable term elsewhere or in later information. When the term "incidentaloma" is used on a magnetic resonance imaging (MR) report, it refers to "a disease or physical condition found as a secondary by-product of capturing the necessary volume of tissue within the field of view of the MR examination" (http://radsource.us/incidentaloma). It is not necessarily neoplastic.

 2017
20210076

Reportability/Brain and CNS:  Is a 2021 case of ecchordosis physaliphora (lesion within the prepontine cistern) on brain MRI reportable?

Ecchordosis physaliphora is not reportable.

 2021
20170080

Reportability/Breast: Is lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) reportable? The eighth edition, American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual does not stage LCIS.

Yes, LCIS is reportable. Staging does not determine reportability. Follow the reportability requirements of your state and national standard setter. SEER reportability requirements are found in the SEER manual starting on page 5, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2016/SPCSM_2016_maindoc.pdf

 2017
20071041

Reportability/Chemotherapy--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is pyridoxine-responsive sideroblastic anemia (SA) reportable and is pyridoxine coded as chemotherapy for SA and refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts (RARS)? See Discussion.

Patient has refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts on bone marrow path. The physician mentions it might be due to pyridoxine deficiency. Per the SEER*Rx, pyridoxine (aka Vitamin B6) is not coded as treatment. What causes RARS and SA? Is pyridoxine treatment for either disease process? Or is the pyridoxine just treating one aspect of the anemia? The patient has no other treatment but this.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Sideroblastic anemia (SA) is not reportable. SA is not the same as refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts (RARS). Therefore, do not code pyridoxine administered for SA as therapy. If the patient had RARS that "might be due to pyridoxine deficiency," the replacement pyridoxine would not be coded as chemotherapy because it does not control or kill malignant cells. If the pyridoxine was successful in alleviating the refractory anemia, the RARS would be reversible and would not meet the criteria for a reportable blood disease; i.e. irreversible, clonal.

For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.

 2007
20081119

Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Liver: Does the final diagnosis of a scan have higher priority than the findings in the discussion in the body of the report? See Discussion.

A patient with liver cancer becomes transplant eligible when the tumor is 2 cm in size. Frequently, liver tumors will be watched (no biopsy) for months until they meet the 2 cm size criteria. In the meantime, multiple scans will describe the tumor using variations of ambiguous terms that drift in and out of reportablility. One day the tumor is labeled "presumed hepatocellular carcinoma." Weeks later it is back to "worrisome for hepatoma." A single scan will use different terms in different sections of the report.

Example case: Abdominal CT reveals a 1 cm liver lesion. Per the discussion portion of the scan, the lesion is consistent with hepatocellular carcinoma. Per final diagnosis: 1 cm liver lesion, possibly hepatocellular carcinoma. Is this report diagnostic of cancer? Would the date of this report be the date of diagnosis? (Patient did receive a liver transplant for hepatocellular carcinoma months later.)

When a reportable ambiguous term is used in one part of a report or the medical record and a non-reportable ambiguous term is used in another part of the report or the medical record, accept the reportable term and accession the case.

The example above is reportable. "Consistent with" is a reportable ambiguous term. Accept "consistent with" over the non-reportable term "possibly."

The date of this report would be the date of diagnosis if this is the earliest report using reportable terminology.

 2008