Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
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 |
|
|
20160008 | Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Liver: Is a statement of LI-RADS 5 or LI-RADS 4 diagnostic of HCC? See discussion. |
We are seeing more use of LI-RAD categories on scans. The final impression on the scan will be LI-RADS Category 5 or LI-RADS Category 4, with no specific statement of HCC. The scans include a blanket statement with the definitions of the LI-RADS categories as below.
LIRADS (v2014) categories M - Possible non-HCC malignancy 1 - Definitely Benign 2 - Probably Benign 3 - Intermediate Probability for HCC 4 - Probably HCC 5 - Definitely HCC (concordant with OPTN 5)
A previous SINQ, 20010094, indicates that we cannot use BI-RADS categories for breast cancer diagnosis, but those BI-RADS definitions are slightly different. Most often there will be a subsequent clinical statement of HCC, so the question is also in reference to Diagnosis Date. Can we use the date of the scan's impression, which states LI-RADS category 4 or 5, as the Diagnosis Date? |
Report cases with an LI-RADS category LR-5 or LR-5V based on the 2014 American College of Radiology definitions, http://nrdr.acr.org/lirads/
Do not report cases based only on an LI-RADS category of LR-4.
Use the date of the LR-5 or LR-5V scan as the date of diagnosis when it is the earliest confirmation of the malignancy. |
2016 |
|
|
20180001 | Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Small intestine: Is this case reportable? Widely metastatic gastrointestinal stomal tumor (GIST) was diagnosed at an out-of-state facility in 2017 and referred back to a hospital in our state for chemotherapy where there is a history of a small bowel resection of GIST of uncertain malignant potential (8936/1) doneat the hospital in 2003. If so, is the diagnosis date 2003 or 2017? See Discussion. |
The hospital registrar reports that the case was identified at the hospital because of the referral for chemotherapy for the metastatic GIST. The records from the out-of-state hospital mentioned a history of a small bowel resection in 2003 for a borderline tumor. The registrar went back through the hospital's old records and found the surgery was done for GIST of low malignant potential at her facility. The question is whether to report the case or not, and if reported, is 2003 the diagnosis date. The rules say to change the behavior and backdate the diagnosiswhen a tumor is presumed benign and islater diagnosed as malignant. Another problem for this case is that the out-of-state hospital did not review the slides from the 2003 surgery. |
Report the case with a diagnosis date of 2017. The 2003 diagnosis was not reviewed, and there are no physician statements that cancer was present in 2003, or that the metastases are attributable to the 2003 diagnosis. Document the details of the case in text fields. |
2018 |
|
|
20210037 | Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Thyroid: Is category Thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TI-RADS) 4 (4a/4b) or TI-RADS 5 on imaging diagnostic of thyroid cancer, and if so, can we use the date of the impression on the scan that states either of these categories as the diagnosis date? |
Answer revised 3/31/2022 Do not report cases based only on the TI-RADS category. The most recent information from ACR on TI-RADS indicates that neither TI-RADS 4 nor TI-RADS 5 is clearly defined as malignancy. TI-RADS 4 is "moderately suspicious" and TI-RADS 5 is "highly suspicious" but they do not specify what they are suspicious for. We need more information to determine reportability. |
2021 | |
|
|
20051046 | Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Leukemia: What is the diagnostic confirmation if a positive BCR/ABL result is diagnostic of a malignancy in a patient suspected to have chronic myelogenous leukemia? See Discussion. |
Example 1: Peripheral smear states: "No morphologic evidence of chronic myelogenous leukemia." Addendum: Molecular diagnostic studies showed a positive rearrangement for the BCR gene with the M-bcr (CML type) and of bcr-abl transcript expression". Example 2: Hematopathology is negative. Molecular diagnostic study: "fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) studies exceeded the limits established by the XXX Cytogenetics Laboratory for this probe set, and thus, demonstrated statistical evidence of BCR/ABL fusion." |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010: Do not determine reportablility using cytogenetics or molecular studies alone. Since these are not routine screening tests, we suggest that you query the physician and review the medical record to see what prompted the study and what is being done with the result, but the test alone is not in and of itself sufficient to report the case. 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. |
2005 |
|
|
20010155 | Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Melanoma: Would a shave biopsy diagnosis of "highly suggestive of early melanoma", followed by a re-excision diagnosis of "no residual disease", be SEER reportable if the clinician referred to the case clinically as a melanoma? If so, what would the Diagnostic Confirmation be? See discussion. |
Pathology report from a shave biopsy states: "...markedly atypical junctional melanocytic proliferation. Changes highly suggestive of early melanoma arising adjacent to superficial congenital nevus." The re-excision pathology report states "biopsy proven melanoma" in the "Clinical History" section of the report (which is a reference to the original shave biopsy). The re-excision final pathology diagnosis states "no evidence of melanoma." The physician states that he thinks this is a melanoma. Should it be reported? Should Diagnostic Confirmation be coded to 1 or 8? |
The case is reportable because the physician documented a clinical diagnosis of malignant melanoma. Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field to 8 [Clinical diagnosis only (other than 5, 6 or 7)]. |
2001 |
|
|
20071063 | Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation: If a diagnosis based solely on positive flow cytometry is reportable even if a bone marrow biopsy is negative, how is diagnostic confirmation coded? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 2010 The case is reportable if a recognized medical practitioner says the patient has cancer. A flow cytometry alone is not diagnostic but it may be supported by either a positive bone marrow or a clinician's statement. If the clinicians statement is based only on flow cytometry, code diagnostic confirmation to 8 [Clinical diagnosis only]. |
2007 | |
|
|
20081009 | Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation: If a physician signs a case out as "precancerous melanosis of the face" (8741/2) and there is no microscopic confirmation of the disease, is this a reportable clinical diagnosis? |
This case is reportable because the diagnosis of precancerous melanosis was stated by a recognized medical practitioner. Precancerous melanosis meets the reportable diagnosis criteria (See 2007 SEER Manual page 1). Assign diagnostic confirmation code 8 [clinical diagnosis only]. Set the appropriate override flag for the SEER edit. |
2008 | |
|
|
20220028 | Reportability/EOD--Ovary: Bilateral ovary shows gonadoblastoma with germ cell neoplasia in situ (9064/2). Pathology report clearly states in situ. Is this case reportable? If this case is reportable, how would you code Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor and SEER Summary Stage (SS)? In situ code 000 for primary tumor and code 0 for SS 2018 is not given as an option. |
Report germ cell neoplasia in situ (9064/2). Assign 999 for EOD Primary Tumor and assign 9 for SS2018. This particular histology is in the Soft Tissue Abdomen and Thoracic schema where EOD PT 000 and SS2018 0 are not available. This histology will be moved to the Ovary schema after redefining certain schemas and thus making the more accurate choices for EOD and SS2018 available. The schema redefine is planned for 2024 implementation. |
2022 | |
|
|
20061137 | Reportability/Grade, Differentiation: Does the term "grade 0" refer to differentiation or does its use as a modifying phrase in the final diagnosis of "grade 0 immature teratoma" impact reportability? |
Regarding the term "grade 0" for an immature teratoma, determine whether the pathologist is using that term to describe the primary tumor or its implants. The term can be used to describe both situations. An immature teratoma (IT) may have grade 0 (benign) implants. Grade 0 implants may affect the prognosis and treatment, but the primary tumor (IT) would still be malignant and therefore reportable. If grade 0 pertains to the primary tumor (as opposed to implants) it is benign, and therefore not reportable. |
2006 |
An official website of the United States government
