System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 11/19/2025 06:39 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20130047 Date of diagnosis--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the diagnosis date for a patient with a mild thrombocytosis diagnosed in 2008, that was subsequently treated with Anagrelide in 11/2010 following an increase in platelet count, and later in 3/2011 was found to have positive JAK2 study physician refers to as essential thrombocythemia? See Discussion. In 2008, patient diagnosed with mild thrombocytosis. The patient opted to be followed clinically with observation. In November 2010, a CBC showed an increased platelet count to 600,000. Anagrelide was started. The patient would never agree to a bone marrow biopsy. However, in 3/2011 a JAK2 study was performed and read as positive. Following the positive Jak2 study, physician stated the diagnosis was essential thrombocytosis and started the patient on a different drug.

Code the diagnosis date to 3/2011. It wasn't until 3/2011 that the physician documented a reportable diagnosis of essential thrombocytosis [9962/3].

Mild thrombocytosis is not reportable. Therefore, the case was not reportable in 2008. Although the patient was treated in 2010, there was no documentation of a reportable diagnosis.

2013
20130062 Date of diagnosis--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the diagnosis date be coded to the date of the flow cytometry on the peripheral blood or the date of the bone marrow biopsy for a diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/low grade B-cell lymphoma? See Discussion. Is a flow cytometry on peripheral blood alone diagnostic of a hematopoietic malignancy (CLL)? If not, when the diagnosis is verified by a subsequent histologic diagnosis (bone marrow biopsy) would the diagnosis date be the date of the peripheral blood flow cytometry or the date of the bone marrow biopsy? The Class of Case depends on this diagnosis date.

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Code the diagnosis date to the date of the peripheral blood flow cytometry because this is a procedure used to diagnose CLL. Per both the Abstractor Notes and the Definitive Diagnostic Methods sections in the Heme DB, CLL is diagnosed by flow cytometry (immunophenotyping).

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2013
20100012 Date of diagnosis--Breast: How is the date of diagnosis coded when a mammogram describes only "suspicious calcifications" with a BIRADS category of 4 assigned and the suspicious calcifications are subsequently proven to be malignant on biopsy? See Discussion. The date of diagnosis is the date when cancer was first diagnosed by a recognized medical practitioner, whether clinically or microscopically confirmed. Ambiguous terminology used to determine reportability is listed in part I of FORDS pages 3-4. No BIRADS categories are included and, therefore, should not be used by the registrar to determine the earliest date of diagnosis. In addition, the term "suspicious for calcification" is not reportable, because calcification is benign condition, unless the physician describes it as malignant. Reference 46637, 12/29/2009 FORDS - In the last paragraph there is a statement that no BIRAD categories are listed...cannot be used to determine earliest date of diagnosis. Does the SEER Program follow this guideline? The date of diagnosis for this case is the date of the biopsy. There is no reportable diagnosis on the mammogram. 2010
20051028 Date of Diagnosis--Bladder: Should the date of diagnosis be based on the 1/7/04 urine cytology with low grade transitional cell carcinoma or the subsequent 1/27/04 pathology findings of papillary transitional cell carcinoma? In this case, the date of the cytology is the date of diagnosis, 01-07-2004. 2005
20000420 Date of Diagnosis--All Sites: Is it better to estimate the month in the date of diagnosis field using the re-excision pathology report date or code the month to unknown if the only available information is the re-excision date? See discussion.

The only available information is the following pathology report:

On 7/18/00 a wide excision of the primary lesion is done. The report reads, "Lesion approximately 1 cm. Residual superficial spreading malignant melanoma with deepest penetration 4 mm."

Code the Date of Diagnosis field to 07/2000 for this case. Estimate the month of diagnosis whenever possible.

Given the usual delay between the initial excision of the lesion and a wide excision for a melanoma, estimate the month of diagnosis as July.

 2000
20081139 Date Multiple Tumors--Prostate: For a prostate biopsy done 10/20/08, both lobes involved with tumor, unknown how many tumors, what would be coded in date of multiple tumors? In this case, code the date of the biopsy in Date of Multiple Tumors [10202008]. When the number of tumors is unknown, code the date of diagnosis as the Date of Multiple Tumors. This is the date on which it was determined that there were an unknown number of tumors. This instruction will be added to next edition of the MP/H manual. 2008
20081018 CS Tumor Size: Is a 5.5 mm tumor coded as 005 or 006? See Discussion. We interpret the CS Manual general instructions to indicate to ONLY round up to 001 when the tumor size is stated to be 0.1 to 0.9mm.

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Code CS tumor size 006. Because only whole numbers in mm can be collected, basic mathematical principles are used for rounding; 1-4 round down, 5-9 round up.

 2008
20041075 CS Tumor Size: Can we take the size of a "polypoid" mass? See Discussion.

3/04 Colonoscopy: 4 cm semi-circumferential friable mass in sigmoid colon. Path: Tubulovillous adenoma indeterminate for malignancy. 4/04 Sigmoid Colectomy: 5 x 4 polypoid mass: WD Adenocarcinoma arising in a tubulovillous adenoma.

Define "Polypoid". Size of "polypoid" mass. Would the size be coded to 050 or 999?

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.If the pathology report confirms that the entire polyp is malignant, code the size of the polyp/polypoid mass. If the pathology report does not confirm that the entire polyp is malignant, code 999.

Code tumor size as 999 [Unknown] for the example above. Do not code the size of the polypoid mass in this example. The size given above is the size of the polypoid mass, not the size of the malignancy.

Polypoid means "Like a polyp.

 2004
20091045 CS Tumor Size/CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: When tumor size is unknown, but it is known that both in situ and invasive components are present, how should CS Tumor Size and SSF6 be coded? See Discussion. We coded CS Tumor Size 990 and SSF 6 to 060 for a case in which no tumor size was mentioned and the breast core biopsy identified microinvasive infiltrating lobular carcinoma and lobular carcinoma insitu. The lumpectomy identified no residual tumor. SEER edit 218 states we must have CS Tumor Size as 999 if the CS SSF 6 is 060. Yet the tumor size code of 990 (Microinvasion; microscopic focus or foci only, no size given; described as less than 1 mm) would more accurately reflect this case. Even in a situation where there was microinvasion described as less than 1mm, the edit will not allow one to code CS Tumor Size to 990 with the CS SSF 6 as 060. Should these types of cases have CS Tumor Size coded 999 or should the edit be adjusted to allow for this combination?

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Code CS tumor size 990 [Microinvasion; microscopic focus or foci only, no size given; described as less than 1 mm] and CS SSF6 050 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in CS Tumor Size because size of invasive component not stated AND proportions of in situ and invasive not known].

This combination of codes captures the information available for this case.

 2009
20061039 CS Tumor Size/CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: Should the tumor size be coded to 1.5 cm or 2.5 cm and SSF6 coded to 020 or 030 respectively for a tumor with invasive and in situ components described as being a 2.5 cm tumor with a "greater than" 1.5 cm invasive portion? See Discussion. Should tumor size be coded to 1.5 cm and SSF6 coded to 020 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of invasive component stated and coded in CS Tumor Size] or should the tumor size be 2.5 cm with SSF6 coded to 030 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in CS Tumor Size because size of invasive component not stated and in situ described as minimal (less than 25%)]?

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.

Code CS tumor size 992 [stated as greater than 1 cm] and SSF6 code 020.

The September 2006 revision to the CS Tumor Size table now lists the 992-995 range codes as "greater than ___ cm."

It is better to code the invasive size than the entire size of the tumor. In the TNM mapping, this would more accurately portray the tumor as T1c rather than T2.

 2006