Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20091004 | Reportability--Kidney: Is the donor or the recipient the reportable patient when a cyst removed from a pre-transplanted kidney is determined to be cancerous? See Discussion. |
A patient received a kidney from her son. The son's kidney had a cyst which was removed prior to the transplant and later determined to be renal cell ca. Who do we report, the donor or the recipient? |
The renal cell carcinoma should be reported for the donor. The cyst that was determined to be carcinoma was removed before the kidney was transplanted. |
2009 |
|
|
20210033 | Reportability--Liver: Is a diagnosis of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS)-Treatment Response (LR-TR) viable nodule seen on imaging and treated with Y-90 radiotherapy reportable? See Discussion. |
Patient was initially diagnosed in 2017 with LR-5 lesions in segments 3 and 7 of liver and treated with radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Routine scans in 2019 show no evidence of residual or recurrent disease. Surveillance imaging in 2020 identifies LR-TR viable segment 3 treatment zone with slowly growing arterially-enhancing nodule as well as increasing arterial enhancement in the neighboring parenchyma. No new LR-4 or LR-5 observations. Patient is not a surgical candidate but is treated with Y-90 radiotherapy. Per Rule M10, tumors diagnosed more than 1 year apart are multiple primaries. However, there is no clear clinical statement of malignancy in this case. |
Do not report LR-TR viable as a new primary. LR-TR viable is a component of the Li-RADS Treatment Response algorithm designed to assess response for path-proven or presumed (e.g., LR-4, LR-5, LR-M) malignancy after locoregional treatment for hepatocellular cancer. LR-TR viable indicates it met the criteria as a viable tumor. |
2021 |
|
|
20170051 | Reportability--Liver: Is intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the liver a reportable diagnosis? See Discussion. |
Pathology shows: Right liver lobe, partial hepatectomy " intraductal papillary neoplasm with high grade dysplasia. |
Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the liver with high grade dysplasia is reportable. While most IPMNs arise from the pancreas, there exists a subset of IPMN of the biliary tract (BT-IPMN). Code as 8453/2. For more details, see the Reportability section of the SEER manual, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2016/SPCSM_2016_maindoc.pdf |
2017 |
|
|
20160019 | Reportability--Lung: Is a case of pulmonary metastatic leiomyoma (favored) vs. low grade leiomyosarcoma reportable, and if so, what is the primary site and histology code? See Discussion. |
Patient presents with an abnormal chest x-ray. PET reveals 4.6 cm left lower lobe mass and several additional bilateral nodules measuring up to 1.6 cm. Biopsy was recommended and is positive for metastatic histologically benign smooth muscle neoplasm. ER/PR are positive. Mayo consult on biopsy agrees with histology. The differential diagnosis includes benign metastasizing leiomyoma and low grade leiomyosarcoma. Comment: If these nodules remain small and do not progressively grow would consider this metastasizing leiomyoma. Physicians state bilateral pulmonary metastatic leiomyoma (favored) vs low grade leiomyosarcoma. Tamoxifen was started. Patient has a history of uterine fibroids. Several months later, imaging reveals stable bilateral multi pulmonary nodules and left lower lobe mass but persistent. Surgery was recommended but cancelled due to insurance. |
This case is not reportable based on the information provided. The histologic diagnosis is "metastatic histologically benign smooth muscle neoplasm." The physicians seem to agree with the histologic diagnosis, benign metastasizing leiomyoma (BML). The WHO classification and ICD-O-3 assign 8898/1 to "metastasizing leiomyoma." WHO states "This resembles a typical leiomyoma but it is found in the lungs of women with a history of typical uterine leiomyomas." A recent article states "Because of the hormone-sensitive characteristics of BML, treatments are based on hormonal manipulation along with either surgical or medical oophorectomy." Tamoxifen treatment is in keeping with the BML diagnosis. |
2016 |
|
|
20051067 | Reportability--Lung: Is sclerosing hemangioma of the lung with multiple regional lymph nodes metastases reportable? |
No, it is not reportable. According to the WHO Classification of Lung Tumours, sclerosing hemangioma "behaves in a clinically benign fashion...Reported cases with hilar or mediastinal lymph node involvement do not have a worse prognosis." |
2005 | |
|
|
20140071 | Reportability--Lung: One of our facilities has a case they are not really sure how to report.
This patient came in for a double lung transplant due to COPD which occurred on 1/27/14. At time of transplant, the team found out the donor hospital had identified a small nodule in the right lower lobe donor lung, which they biopsied and deemed negative. However, the slides were reviewed and felt to represent adenocarcinoma. The team performed a right lower lobe lobectomy of the donor lung before transplanting into the patient.
So, we are not really sure how to handle this case. The adenocarcinoma actually belongs to the donor patient from another hospital, however, they actually didn’t identify it at that facility as their pathology was negative for a malignancy. |
This very interesting case is not reportable to either facility. Since the right lower lobe nodule was resected prior to transplantation, the case does not belong to your patient. Ideally, the cancer should be assigned to the donor; however, donor information is confidential. |
2014 | |
|
|
20061097 | Reportability--Lymphoma: Is a lymphoma diagnosed on a bone marrow biopsy reportable if the cytogenetics evaluation performed does not confirm the malignancy? See Discussion. |
Bone marrow Bx: Marginal zone lymphoma/leukemia. The morphology of the lymphoma/leukemia cells and the immunophenotypic characteristics identified by flow cytometry are consistent with marginal zone lymphoma/leukemia. Addendum Report: Cytogenetic evaluation revealed a 46,XY male karyotype. This is the normal male chromosome karyotype. Based on the limits of this methodology, no evidence of hematologic malignancy was observed in this specimen. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010: Yes, this case is reportable. The cytogenetic evaluation cited in the addendum report does not disprove the bone marrow biopsy diagnosis. For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, 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. |
2006 |
|
|
20100013 | Reportability--Lymphoma: Should a December 2008 diagnosis of in situ follicular lymphoma be accessioned? See Discussion. |
Patient with mesenteric lymphadenopathy had a biopsy. Consult supports original pathology findings: The histologic and immunophenotypic findings represent what has been referred to in the literature as "in situ follicular lymphoma." The oncology assessment states, "At this point the patient has no other obvious evidence of other disease. ...no hepatosplenomegaly...no peripheral adenopathy...no significant abnormalities on PET scan to suggest active lymphoma." No treatment is planned at this time. The patient will only be monitored. |
Do not report in situ lymphoma at this time. Currently, lymphoma cannot be reported with a behavior code of in situ (/2) and it would be incorrect to abstract in situ lymphoma as a /3.
It is true that this is a recently identified pathologic entity. Our experts say that there is still some controversy to be ironed out regarding the criteria for identifying an in situ lymphoma. Their recommendation was to wait until clear guidelines had been established for the pathologists before we start collection of in situ lymphomas. We anticipate collecting these entities in the future. |
2010 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20110040 | Reportability--Melanoma: Is a pathology report with a final diagnosis stating only non-reportable terms, followed by a re-excision pathology report that indicates "no residual melanoma" reportable? See Discussion. |
Is a case reportable if the final diagnosis on an initial pathology report states a non-reportable term (e.g., evolving melanoma, early/evolving melanoma or melanocytic nevus) and followed by a subsequent re-excision pathology report stating there is "No residual melanoma"? There is no mention in the clinical history on the subsequent pathology report that the diagnosis was thought to be melanoma following the first procedure. The first mention of the reportable term was in the final diagnosis of the subsequent pathology report that stated "no residual melanoma." |
No. This case is not reportable based on the information provided. "No residual melanoma" is not diagnostic of a reportable neoplasm. We recommend that you try to obtain more information from the clinician/pathologist for this case due to the poor documentation. Check for any additional resection performed. |
2011 |
An official website of the United States government
