Back to Search Results

Report Produced: 03/29/2023 07:07 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer (Ascending)
20091103 Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Prostate: Is a prostate biopsy that states "highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy" reportable? Do not report. "Not diagnostic of" means that while the pathologist is seeing some features that resemble cancer, there are not enough features to feel comfortable making an unquestionable diagnosis. Watch for another biopsy of the patient in the next 3-6 months. The statement "not diagnostic of" overrules the "highly suspicious" statement.
20000447 Extension/Ambiguous terminology: How should the terms "entrapped by tumor" and "encased by tumor" be interpreted when coding these fields? Each case must be reviewed in its entirety to determine the appropriate coding of these fields. However, in general the terms "entrapped" and "encased" should NOT be interpreted as involvement unless there is other clinical or pathologic evidence to support involvement.
20130148 Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are "spinal" schwannomas reportable if stated to be extradural, vertebral nerve sheath, or of specific vertebrae? See Discussion.

Are any of the following cases reportable?

Example 1: Clinical Diagnosis: Extradural spinal cord tumor compatible with schwannoma. What assumptions should be made about reportability if the tumor is described as being extradural? The extradural spinal cord includes epidural fat surrounding the thecal sac and exiting nerve roots. Does this mean there are not nerve roots in the extradural spinal cord?

Example 2: Final Pathologic Diagnosis: Designated "C3-4 nerve sheath tumor" excision: Morphologic and immunohistochemical findings consistent with cellular schwannoma. When stated to be a "nerve sheath tumor" does that mean peripheral nerve (C47_) involvement or nerve root (C72_) involvement?

Example 3: Final Pathologic Diagnosis: T-8 vertebral tumor resection: Schwannoma with degenerative changes (calcification, cyst formation) - ganglion and nerve are identified. There is no mention clinically or pathologically whether this tumor is "intradural" or "of the nerve root." In the absence of information about whether the location of the tumor is intradural or involving the nerve root, is it assumed that it does involve this part of the spinal cord when a specific vertebrae is removed?

Extradural schwannomas are not reportable. Neither vertebral nerve sheath nor a location of/on a specific vertebrae confirm the origin as being either extradural or intradural. Do not report a schwannoma if it cannot be determined to be "intradural" or "of the nerve root."
20100014 Reportability: Are there criteria other than a pathologist or clinician's statement that a registrar can use to determine reportability of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST)? See Discussion.

Per SINQ 20091021 and 20021151, GIST cases are not reportable unless they are stated to be malignant. A pathologist or clinician must confirm the diagnosis of cancer. There are cases that are not stated to be malignant in the pathology report or confirmed as such by a clinician; however, these cases do have information that for other primary sites would typically be taken into consideration when determining reportability. The final diagnosis on the pathology report for all 16 cases is "GIST." The additional comment(s) for each of the 16 different cases is reported below. Are any of the following cases reportable?

1) Pathology report indicates that the bulk of the tumor is submucosal. It extends through the muscularis propria and abuts the serosa.

2) Pathology report states tumor extends to serosal surface of transverse colon, but not into muscularis propria. CD 117 and CD 34 are positive.

3) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades through the gastric wall to the serosal surface.

4) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades pericolic fat tissue.

5) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate omental caking.

6) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate hepatic metastases. Hepatic metastases are not biopsied.

7) Tumor stated to be unresectable and extends into pancreas. Chemotherapy given.

8) Pathology report states tumor is low to intermediate grade and involves serosal (visceral peritoneum).

9) Tumor size is 17.5 cm. Pathology report states "malignant risk".

10) Pathology report states tumor "into muscularis propria" or tumor "involves muscularis propria" or "infiltrates into muscularis propria".

11) Pathology report states, "high malignant potential; omentum inv by tumor." It is not stated in path report or final diagnosis to be malignant GIST.

12) Pathology report states that tumor arises from wall of small bowel and extends into thin serosal surface.

13) Pathology report states minimal invasion of lamina propria; does not penetrate muscularis propria.

14) Pathology report states, "high mitotic activity >10/50 HPF; high risk for aggressive behavior; moderate malignant potential."

15) Pathology report states tumor size is >5 cm. Intermediate risk for aggressive behavior; CD117+ KIT exon 11+.

16) Pathology report states "high risk of malignancy."

For GIST to be reportable, the final diagnosis on the pathology report must definitively state that the GIST is malignant, or invasive, or in situ. Case 6 is the only exception. It would be reportable assuming the scan actually states "hepatic metastases." Based only on the information provided, none of the other examples are reportable. The type of extension and/or invasion mentioned in the other examples are not sufficient to confirm malignancy. Borderline neoplasms can extend and invade, but do not metastasize. Only malignant neoplasms metastasize.
20110029 DCO/Multiplicity Counter/Type of Multiple Tumors: How are these fields coded for an unknown primary reported as a DCO case? See Discussion.

Do DCO cases have default values for the Multiplicity Counter and Multiple Tumor Reported as One Primary fields? Should these fields be coded as 88 or 99?

In the data item pages for these fields, there is only a reference to see the NAACCR Death Clearance Manual. However, this manual does not provide an answer. There is guidance to use code 88 for unknown primaries but we noticed that SEER edits skip enforcing this requirement for DCO cases (see SEER IF205 and 206).

For a DCO case reported as an unknown primary [C809], code Multiplicity Counter to 99 [Unknown if multiple tumors; not documented] and Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary to 99 [Unknown].
20010115 Spanish Surname or Origin: If Asians, Blacks and Whites with non-Spanish surnames are born in a Spanish country, is this field coded to Spanish or non-Spanish? See discussion. For example, how do we code Miyako Mitsubishi with race listed as Japanese who was born in Peru or Sylvia Shapiro with race listed as White who was born in Argentina? For both cases, code the Spanish Surname or Origin field to 0 [Non-Spanish/Non-Hispanic]. Persons with non-Spanish surnames would not be coded as being Spanish solely because they are born in a Spanish country. Do not code Spanish ethnicity based only on birthplace. Place of birth is a separate data item and it can be used in data analysis to identify this particular group of people.
20000422 Surgery of Primary Site: Should laparoscopy be coded as exploratory surgery? See discussion. Many surgeons are doing exploratory surgery with laparoscopy involving a very small incision, but they can examine organs and take biopsies. Should laparoscopy be coded as exploratory surgery? For cases diagnosed 1/1/1998 and later: Exploratory surgical procedures, such as laparoscopic surgeries, are not coded in the Surgery of Primary Site field.
20021007 Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery: If a named regional lymph node is aspirated should this field be coded to 1 [Regional lymph node removed, NOS], as is stated on page 127 of the SEER Program Code Manual, or should this field be coded to a more specific code when that is available (e.g. Lung primary code 3 [Ipsilateral mediastinal and/or subcarinal nodes])? For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: A generic scheme was created for the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field. As a result, there no longer are codes available that represent specific named lymph node chains. Code aspiration of a lymph node to 1 [Biopsy or aspiration of regional lymph node, NOS].
20021181 Radiation/Chemotherapy: How do we code radiation and chemotherapy when the only statement we have is that the patient is "referred to either an oncologist or a radiation therapist"? For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: A referral does not mean that the radiation therapy or chemotherapy was actually recommended. These cases need follow-back to see if treatment was recommended and/or administered. Some registries code these cases as 8 [Radiation recommended, unknown if administered] or 88 [Chemotherapy recommended, unknown if it was administered] and routinely review all cases with 8 or 88 codes. Upon review, the codes are updated depending on the information found. If there is no information available, the code 8 or 88 is changed to 0 or 00 [None].

Surgery of Primary Site--Skin: Explain the difference between code 30 and code 45.

Code 30 [Biopsy of primary tumor followed by a gross excision of the lesion]

Code 45 [Wide excision or re-excision of lesion or minor (local) amputation with margins more than 1 cm, NOS. Margins MUST be microscopically negative.]

For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code 30 represents a biopsy or excision in which the margins of excision are less than 1 cm or the margins are unknown. Code 45 represents a wide excision in which it is known that the margins of excision are greater than 1 cm.