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: 12/22/2025 11:34 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20110058 Date of diagnosis/Flag: Will the Date of Diagnosis Flag ever be used if the instructions for coding Date of Diagnosis are followed? See Discussion.

If an abstractor follows the instructions for coding the Date of Diagnosis and can at least estimate a year of diagnosis, in what scenario will the Flag be used?

Per the 2010 SEER Manual,

Page 49 Date of Diagnosis, second paragraph, "Regardless of the format, at least Year of diagnosis must be known or estimated. Year of diagnosis cannot be blank or unknown." The manual gives the following guidelines for coding diagnosis date/flag:

Page 50, Coding Instructions:

3. If no information about the date of diagnosis is available

a. Use the date of admission as the date of diagnosis

b. In the absence of an admission date, code the date of first treatment as the date of diagnosis.

Page 51, Coding Instructions:

9. Estimate the date of diagnosis if an exact date is not available. Use all information available to calculate the month and year of diagnosis.

Page 53, Date of Diagnosis Flag, Coding Instructions:

Always leave blank. Date of Diagnosis will always be a full or partial date recorded.

 The date of diagnosis flag should always be blank. 2011
20021139 Date of Diagnosis/EOD-Extension--Placenta: How do you code these fields for a patient who presents with a vaginal metastatic lesion for a placenta primary? Should EOD-Extension be coded to 60 [Other genital structures NOS: vagina, ovary, broad ligament, fallopian tube] or 85 [metastasis other than lung]? See discussion. Pt had D&C Feb 5 with features of complete mole. On March 7, pt seen for a mass just inferior to the urethral meatus. At path, vaginal introitus fragments were consistent with choriocarcinoma. At time of March 23 admit for chemo, history is given as large hydatidiform mole evacuated Feb 5. Her beta hCG titers initially fell but approximately one month later hCG titers rose. At that time, she had an obvious vaginal metastatic lesion. For cases diagnosed 1998 or after: Code the Date of Diagnosis field to March 7, which is the date that the choriocarcinoma was first diagnosed. There was no slide review or clinical statement that the first occurrence was obviously malignant. Therefore, the vaginal mets is not progression and is codeable as extension. Code the EOD-Extension field to 60 [other genital structures, NOS] according to the current EOD scheme for placenta. Even though the mass is discontinuous, it is still included in code 60 per the guidelines of the FIGO system on which the EOD is based. 2002
20031182 Date of Diagnosis/Diagnostic Confirmation: How are these fields coded when a physician statement of diagnosis predates a positive biopsy? See Description. A mass seen on EGD with negative biopsy 12/28/01. Needle core biopsies 1/14/02 were diagnostic of GIST. Gleevec treatment was initiated 2/02, and in discharge summary 5/27/02, the physician says the GIST was diagnosed on EGD. Code the date of diagnosis as 01/2002. Code the diagnostic confirmation as positive histology. EGD revealed a "mass." Biopsies of the "mass" seen on EGD were negative before January 2002. 2003
20061049 Date of Diagnosis/Ambiguous Terminology--Lung: Would the date of a PET scan that states there is a mass in the lung which is "in the range of malignancy " be coded as the date of diagnosis or would the date of a subsequent bronchoscopy with biopsy be used for diagnosis date because it confirms a malignancy?

The date of diagnosis in this case is the date of the bronchoscopy with biopsy.

"In the range of malignancy" is not one of the ambiguous terms that are reportable. Please see the list of reportable ambiguous terms on page 3 of the 2004 SEER manual. Do not accession cases based on ambiguous terms not found on the reportable list.

 2006
20130219 Date of diagnosis/Ambiguous terminology--Breast: Can a mammogram BIRADS 4 or 5 assessment be used to assess reportability and can the date of the mammogram be used to code the date of diagnosis? See Discussion.

  1. Assessment: BIRADS category 4-suspicious. Findings are considered suspicious/indeterminate for malignancy

  • Assessment: BIRADS 5- highly suspicious. Findings are highly suggestive of malignancy.

  • Assessment: BIRADS 4- suspicious abnormality consider biopsy

    • Can the BIRADS number be used to assess reportability? Can a BIRADS assessment of "suspicious" be used to code the date of diagnosis?

    		BIRADS category 4 and category 5 mammograms are not to be interpreted as a reportable "malignancy" for cancer registry purposes nor are they to be used to code the date of diagnosis should the patient subsequently have a malignancy confirmed. 2013
    		20051036 Date of Diagnosis--Sarcoma: Should the date of diagnosis be coded to the date of biopsy or the date of birth for an infant biopsied at 3 days of age and stated to have a diagnosis of congenital alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma, widely metastatic?

    Code the date of the biopsy as the date of diagnosis. This is the date the cancer was first identified by a medical practitioner.

    Note: SEER collects the Month and Year of diagnosis. The "day" of diagnosis is not collected by SEER.

    		 2005
    		20051139 Date of Diagnosis--Lung: Should the diagnosis date be coded to the date of the scan or the date of the resection when there is a negative biopsy that occurs between the two procedures? See Discussion.

    11/2003 CT chest: 2 cm LLL mass should be considered carcinoma until proven otherwise.

    2/2004 CT Chest: stable LLL mass still consistent with primary or metastatic lung neoplasm

    11/2004 CT chest: LLL mass suspicious for slow growing carcinoma

    3/2005 FNA L lung: atypical cells

    4/2005 L lobectomy: well-diff adenocarcinoma

    		 Code the date of diagnosis as 11/2003. A clinical diagnosis was made on 11/2003 and this is the earliest date of diagnosis for this case. 2005
    		20010104 Date of Diagnosis--Lung: Based on Note 7 in the lung EOD, should the Date of Diagnosis field be coded to an earlier CT scan date with a reported diagnosis of "RUL mass with mediastinal lymphadenopathy" or to the later biopsy date with a reported diagnosis of small cell carcinoma? See discussion. Note 7 states that "mediastinal lymphadenopathy" indicates involved lymph nodes for lung primaries. Should the date of diagnosis be back-dated to the date of the scan?

    For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

    No, code the Date of Diagnosis field to the later biopsy date. Note 7 is intended for use in coding the EOD-Extension field, not the Date of Diagnosis field. The earlier scan has a diagnosis of RUL "mass" not a "malignancy" so the fact that there is mediastinal lymphadenopathy mentioned in that scan is not used to help determine date of diagnosis.

    		 2001
    		20130168 Date of diagnosis--Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is the date of diagnosis coded to the date a bone marrow biopsy revealed "plasma cell neoplasm; plasma cells are < 10%" or the date a diagnosis of myeloma was noted in the Discharge Summary? See Discussion.

    Bone marrow biopsy pathology states: Plasma Cell Neoplasm. The plasma cells are < 10%.

    Subsequent to the bone marrow biopsy, the Discharge Summary indicated the patient has a diagnosis of myeloma, hypercalcemia and negative bone marrow surveys.

    What date is used for the date of diagnosis?

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

    Use the date of the Discharge Summary as the date of diagnosis. In this case, the date of diagnosis is the date the physician confirmed the diagnosis of myeloma using all information available.

    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
    		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