Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20200046 | Reportability--Vulva: Is well differentiated vulvar intraepithelial neoplasm (dVIN) reportable? See Discussion. |
Is this histologic terminology synonymous with 8071/2 Differentiated-type vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia? Per the 7/20/2018 updates to the 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology list, the reportability flag was changed from N to Y for Differentiated-type vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia as well as Differentiated penile intraepithelial neoplasia, both 8071/2. It appears that both SINQ 20180020 and the second half of SINQ 20160069 are no longer valid and should be deleted. |
Report well-differentiated vulvar intraepithelial neoplasm (8071/2). Our expert pathologist consultant regards this as reportable. Well-differentiated is synonymous with differentiated in this context. The older SINQ questions have been removed. |
2020 |
|
|
20200025 | Reportability/Ambiguous terminology--Bone: Is a case reportable when the imaging described a left first rib mass as ? See Discussion. |
The radiologist noted the mass was most compatible with a chondroid lesion, which is not reportable on its own, but can the subsequent term be used to accession this as reportable if only one malignant etiology is provided by the radiologist? Or does the statement imply that this is only one of several possible etiologies? |
Review this case with the involved physicians to determine their opinion on the bone mass. Review the plans for further evaluation and treatment (if any) to determine whether the physicians view this case as a chondroid lesion, chondrosarcoma, or something else. If it is not possible to obtain further information, do not report the case at this time. If further information becomes available, review the case again for reportability. |
2020 |
|
|
20200035 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Brain and CNS: Is the expression differential considerations a synonym for differential diagnoses? See Discussion. |
Example: An MRI Spine showed a large expansile mass arising from the sella turcica and extending into the suprasellar cistern, but the radiologist only noted: The leading differential considerations include pituitary macroadenoma or a large suprasellar base meningioma. The patient was subsequently pathologically diagnosed with a pituitary adenoma. It is unclear if the diagnosis date should be coded to the MRI date. There are two existing SINQ questions regarding the term consider. SINQ 20061094 confirms a diagnosis that is considered to be is reportable because it is unambiguous, but SINQ 20081033 states the phrase malignancy is highly considered is not a reportable ambiguous term. How should we interpret differential considerations? If differential considerations is equivalent to a differential diagnosis, then this patient was clinically diagnosed on imaging. However, if differential considerations is not reportable, then there was no diagnosis prior to the resection. |
In an ideal situation, the radiologist should be consulted to determine what he/she meant by "differental considerations." If that is not possible, given the context and usage, "differential considerations" in this case can be interpreted as differential diagnoses. And since the two differential considerations are both reportable, this case is reportable as of the date of the MRI. |
2020 |
|
|
20071060 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Esophagus: Is a case with a biopsy diagnosis of "... focal areas suspicious for adenocarcinoma in situ change" reportable if the diagnosis on the partial esophagectomy specimen only includes the phrase "... with foci of high grade dysplasia; no invasive carcinoma identified"? |
The case is not reportable. The biopsy with a suspicious result (suspicious for adenocarcinoma) was disproven by the esophagectomy. |
2007 | |
|
|
20260008 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should "consistent with" be included in the ambiguous terminology for reportability list in the updated Heme Manual? See Discussion. |
In the Heme Manual, published October 2025, the ambiguous terminology used to determine reportability for heme and lymphoid neoplasms (Case Reportability Instructions) was updated and "consistent with" was removed. However, this is an ambiguous term that is used to describe reportability (and not just histology). The term "consistent with" was previously included as a reportable ambiguous term used to report cases prior to this update. The updated Heme Manual is clear regarding "consistent with" now being a definitive diagnosis for the purpose of coding histology. However, the Note under instruction 4 states, "Do not apply these changes to casefinding, reportability, or staging." Is "consistent with" an exception to this Note? Or should it be re-added to the ambiguous terms related to reportability? |
The 2027 version of the Hematopoietic Manual (release October 2026) will include the following in the Case Reportability Instructions, pg. 40: 4. “Consistent with” for reportability and casefinding is now a definitive diagnosis and is no longer ambiguous terminology. This is for hematopoietic neoplasms ONLY. a. “Consistent with” has become a very common way for pathologists to document diagnoses for Hematopoietic neoplasms. In order to ensure that hematopoietic cases are being reported, “consistent with” has now become definitive terminology for casefinding and reportability (see Histology Coding Instructions for assigning histology). b. Do not apply this instruction to casefinding and reportability for Solid Tumors. 5. Report the case when the diagnosis of a hematopoietic neoplasm is preceded by one or more of the ambiguous terms listed below: a. This instruction pertains to reportability and case finding only. See the Histology Coding Instructions, #3-5 for instructions on assigning histology with ambiguous terminology (note that “consistent with” has been removed. See Note #4) .
|
2026 |
|
|
20240067 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Kidney: Is a clinical diagnosis of a right kidney lesion with a “75% chance of malignancy” reportable when no further information is available? See Discussion. |
The CT findings identified a right kidney rim-enhancing centrally cystic lesion most suggestive of clear cell renal cell carcinoma measuring 3.2 cm. The radiologist’s impression was “concerning for renal cell carcinoma.” The subsequent urologist’s consult states the right kidney lesion has a 75% chance of malignancy. The urologist discussed active surveillance, surgery, and ablation, and after discussion with the patient the plan was for active surveillance. No further information is available, and we are unable to follow up with the physician regarding this case. Should a lesion with a high percentage chance of malignancy (e.g., 75% chance) be considered a lesion “most likely” to be malignant? |
If you are unable to follow up with the physician, do not report this case until or unless more information becomes available. |
2024 |
|
|
20140033 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Prostate: Can you clarify why a prostate biopsy diagnosis of “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” is not reportable while a biopsy diagnosis of “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable? See discussion. |
SINQ 20091103 states that prostate biopsies showing “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” are NOT reportable. However, SINQ 20071056 states that “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable. This appears to be an issue of semantics with no clearly outlined method to determine reportability of such cases.
We have two recent cases with similar semantic issues and want to know whether they are reportable.
1) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation, highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma, with quality/quantity insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer.”
2) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma but due to the small size of focus, findings are not definitively diagnostic.” |
Both case examples provided are reportable using instructions for ambiguous terminology. The diagnoses are qualified by the words "highly suspicious" because neither diagnosis is definitive ("insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer" and "not definitively diagnostic."). However, we follow our instructions for interpreting ambiguous terminology and report these cases.
SINQ 20091103 differs slightly. The final diagnosis in 20091103 declares unequivocally "not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma." That phrase in the final diagnosis negates the ambiguous terminology. The situation in 20071056 is similar to the two examples above - the ambiguous terminology instructions apply. |
2014 |
|
|
20240045 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Prostate: Should cases be reported and abstracted based on ambiguous terminology, e.g., suspicious for prostate cancer, when the physician is not treating the case as malignant? See Discussion. |
Please comment on these specific scenarios.
|
For each of your scenarios, the medical record information indicates that the case is not reportable based on physician opinion. Do not abstract these cases. Remember that the ambiguous terms list is to be used as a last resort. The ideal way to approach abstracting situations when the medical record is not clear is to follow up with the physician. If the physician is not available, the medical record, and any other pertinent reports (e.g., pathology, etc.) should be read closely for the required information. See page 19 in the SEER Manual, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2024/SPCSM_2024_MainDoc.pdf |
2024 |
|
|
20010044 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology/Date of Diagnosis: If a "suspicious" cytology is reportable only when a later positive biopsy or a physician's clinical impression of cancer supports the cytology findings, is the Date of Diagnosis field coded to the later confirmation date rather than to the date of the suspicious cytology? Is a suspicious "biopsy" handled the same way? |
Cytology reported as "suspicious" is not reportable. If the physician confirms the suspicious cytology by making a clinical diagnosis of malignancy, the Date of Diagnosis field is coded to the date of the clinical diagnosis, which may or may not be same date the cytology was performed. Without supporting clinical documentation, the case will remain non-reportable and will not be submitted to SEER. The supporting documentation can be a physician's statement that the patient has cancer, a scan or procedure that identifies cancer, or a positive biopsy. Suspicious "biopsies" are reportable according to SEER's list of ambiguous terms. Suspicious "cytologies" without supporting clinical statements are not. |
2001 | |
|
|
20220011 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology: When the only source of information states the diagnosis as two terms, one reportable and one non-reportable, separated by a "slash" (/), should we report the case using the reportable term? See Discussion. |
For example: -ultrasound of the right eye: consistent with a nevoma/melanoma; we could not find any indication that nevoma is a reportable term -bladder biopsy pathology report: severe urothelial dysplasia/carcinoma in situ (CIS) As a central registry, we receive some limited information cases like this where there is no record of treatment or possibility to follow-back to physicians for clarification, so we want to make sure we are reporting them correctly. |
If possible, try to obtain further information. If no further information can be obtained, accession the case using the reportable term, melanoma and CIS in the respective examples, when there is a single report in which both reportable and non-reportable diagnostic terms are listed with a slash and there is no other information. Most often, the slash indicates the terms are being used synonymously. |
2022 |
An official website of the United States government
