SEER Inquiry System - Question 20260009 Details

2026 SEER Manual Appendix E states PI-RADS (4 and 5) are reportable; they can be used to code the diagnosis date.

The Date of Diagnosis Coding Instruction 3 in the SEER Manual states:The first diagnosis of cancer may be clinical (i.e., based on clinical findings or physician’s documentation) Note: Do not change the date of diagnosis when a clinical diagnosis is subsequently confirmed by positive histology or cytology.

2026 STORE Manual states:

PI-RADS, BI-RADS, LI-RADs alone are not reportable for CoC. PI-RADS, BI-RADS, L-RADS confirmed with biopsy or physician statement are reportable to CoC. Date of diagnosis is the date of the positive biopsy or definitive statement from physician.

Example: 01/04/2023 MRI identified both PI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions bilaterally. No work-up immediately followed and there is no chart information to account for the delay. The patient was seen again by urology and a 05/20/2024 biopsy proved adenocarcinoma. The patient underwent a prostatectomy approximately 6 months after biopsy on 01/13/2025. Biopsy diagnosis followed MRI diagnosis more than 16 months later and the plan was for active treatment.

When further work-up does not shortly follow the MRI, and no information is available to the central registry to account for the delay, should the date of the biopsy be used to code diagnosis date?

Using the SEER PI-RADS diagnosis in these cases makes it appear as if any first course treatment is often greater than 1 year after "diagnosis," when it is really only approximately 6 months after the biopsy.

Which source should be used to code diagnosis date in these cases?

Case 1: 01/04/2023 MRI identified both PI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions bilaterally. No work-up immediately followed and there is no chart information to account for the delay. The patient was seen again by urology and a 05/20/2024 biopsy proved adenocarcinoma. The patient underwent a prostatectomy approximately 6 months after biopsy on 01/13/2025. Biopsy diagnosis followed MRI diagnosis more than 16 months later and the plan was for active treatment.

Case 2: 02/05/2024 MRI identified a PI-RADS 5 lesion. No work-up immediately followed and there is no chart information to account for the delay. The patient was seen again by urology and a 08/29/2024 biopsy proved adenocarcinoma. After consultation with the urologist, active surveillance was recommended on 01/27/2025. Biopsy diagnosis followed MRI diagnosis more than 6 months later and the plan was for active surveillance.