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: 10/07/2026 13:57 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20240045

Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Prostate: Should cases be reported and abstracted based on ambiguous terminology, e.g., suspicious for prostate cancer, when the physician is not treating the case as malignant? See Discussion.

Please comment on these specific scenarios.

  1. A prostate biopsy is suspicious for adenocarcinoma, but the urologist is not considering this malignant, nor is the urologist treating for malignancy, but there is no clear statement from the physician that this is not reportable.  Should this case be abstracted?
  2. A prostate biopsy is suspicious for adenocarcinoma, and there is a statement by the physician that this is not yet malignant. Should this case be abstracted?
  3. Prostate MRI with PIRADS 4 or 5; however, the treating urologist does not call this malignant and is not treating patient for prostate cancer.  [Example: 2024 Prostate MRI - PI-RADS 4. Follow up with Urologist states patient to repeat Prostate MRI in 1 year and continue with yearly PSA levels and there is no mention of prostate cancer other than the PI-RADS score]. Should this case be abstracted?

For each of your scenarios, the medical record information indicates that the case is not reportable based on physician opinion. Do not abstract these cases.

Remember that the ambiguous terms list is to be used as a last resort. The ideal way to approach abstracting situations when the medical record is not clear is to follow up with the physician. If the physician is not available, the medical record, and any other pertinent reports (e.g., pathology, etc.) should be read closely for the required information. See page 19 in the SEER Manual, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2024/SPCSM_2024_MainDoc.pdf

 Prostate N/A 2024
20000493 EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: For prostate cancer, can an elevated PSA be used to code metastasis? See discussion.

5/31/98 PE: 30 gm prostate with nodularity, suspicious for CA.

Final diagnosis: Stage D Ca of prostate with mets, NOS

PTA IVP: Normal collecting system

5/11/98 CXR: NED

PSA 86.3 Suggestive of prostate Ca per MD

5/13/98 TURP and bilat. orchiectomy: Plan was to perform orchiectomy as treatment of choice if biopsy was positive. Appears MD feels that the patient has mets, NOS based on the elevated PSA.

5/13/98 TURP Adenocarcinoma, PD

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, do not code the EOD-Clinical Extension field based on elevated PSA alone. If a recognized practitioner states that there is metastasis, then metastasis should be coded.

In this case, code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to 85 [Metastasis] because it is Stage D. But if you had D1 or D2 staging based on the involvement of lymph nodes, then that involvement would be coded under EOD lymph nodes and not under the clinical extension field.

 Prostate N/A 2000
20031072

EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: Is extracapsular extension implied by the phrase "tumor invades the fibrous tissue of the capsule"? See Description.

The physician staged to a pathology stage of T3. It appears the physician regards the following pathology statement to be equivalent to capsular invasion on the right side: "Tumor invades the fibrous tissue of the capsule on the right side where it approaches to within 1 mm. of the surgical margin." Should pathologic extension be coded to 42[unilateral extracapsular extension]?

Use the best information available to stage the case. In this case, the best information is the pathologist's description of the tumor extension rather than the AJCC stage.

For cases diagnosed 1995-2003: Extracapsular extension is not implied by the phrase in the question. Code the capsular involvement described to 32 [invasion into but not beyond the prostatic capsule] on the basis of the pathology report.

 Prostate N/A 2003
20051062 Surgery of Primary Site--Prostate: How is the use of a Laserscope Niagara laser (modulated KTP-YAG laser beam (Niagara 122 prostate vaporization)) coded for prostate primaries? See Discussion. The Laserscope Niagara laser performs an operation similar to the TURP, but there is virtually no bleeding and patients can sometimes go home the same day, most without a catheter. The laser is delivered through a fiber (the thickness of hair) into the cavity via an endoscope inserted through the urethra. When performed as part of the first course of therapy, assign surgery code 15 [Laser ablation] to Niagara laser photovaporization of the prostate. Prostate Surgery of Primary Site 2005
20230012

Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Prostate:  How many primaries are accessioned when a 06/2022 diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma is followed less than one year later by a 01/2023 diagnosis of small cell carcinoma (SmCC)?  See Discussion.

Rule M4 was added to the Other Sites M Rules to address diagnoses of small cell carcinoma following prostate adenocarcinoma, but Rule M4 states the diagnoses must be greater than one year apart.

In this situation, the diagnoses were less than one year apart and one must continue through the M Rules. The next M Rule that applies Rule M19: “Abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on multiple rows in Table 2-21 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions. Timing is irrelevant.” If one were to STOP at the first rule that applies, one would stop at Rule M19 which confirms the prostatic adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma are separate primaries, regardless of timing. If these are not to be accessioned as multiple primaries, does an Exception need to be added to M19?

Assuming the smal cell is a seperate tumor, accession two primaries, adenocarcinoma (8140/3) of the prostate and SmCC (8041/3) of the prostate using Rule M19 of the current Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules.  As these two tumors are less than a year apart, Rule M4 does not apply; however, Rule 19 does apply as these are two distinct histology types. It takes time for an acinar tumor to transform into the small cell and it is usually triggered by hormone and/or radiation treatment. 

 Prostate N/A 2023
20000262 EOD-Clinical Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Prostate: How do you code clinical extension and lymph nodes for path only prostate cases treated with a TURP? Would clinical extension be coded to unknown or localized, NOS? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to 30 [localized, NOS] and the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 0 [no lymph node involvement]. Per Note 7: Use code 30 when there is insufficient information as to whether the tumor is clinically apparent or inapparent but the tumor is confined to the prostate. This is an example of a case where there is insufficient information as to whether the tumor is clinically apparent or inapparent. Assume the tumor is confined to the prostate. Prostate N/A 2000
20230011

Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Prostate: How many primaries are accessioned when a 2023 liver biopsy diagnosed metastatic small cell carcinoma (SmCC) of the prostate following a 2018 radical prostatectomy treated diagnosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma?  See Discussion.

SINQs 20190083, 20180088, and 20130221 all indicate diagnoses of prostate adenocarcinoma, followed by a diagnosis of metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate are separate primaries because these are distinctly different histologies. Does this logic still apply for 2023 and later since Rule M4 was added to the Other Sites M Rules? Rule M4 states, “Abstract multiple primaries when the patient has a subsequent small cell carcinoma of the prostate more than 1 year following a diagnosis of acinar adenocarcinoma and/or subtype/variant of acinar adenocarcinoma of prostate.”

This patient has a 2018 diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma treated with radical prostatectomy, followed by a 2023 diagnosis of metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate diagnosed on a liver metastasis core biopsy. Rule M4 does not indicate whether it applies to subsequent biopsy confirmed metastatic tumor only. When a diagnosis of small cell carcinoma follows a diagnosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma, it is almost always confirmed in metastatic sites rather than in the primary site. Does the logic in the referenced SINQs above still apply for Rule M4?

Accession two primaries, adenocarcinoma (8140/3) of the prostate and SmCC (8041/3) of the prostate using Rule M4 of the current Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules.  The guidance in the aforementioned SINQ entries still applies with the additional criteria of being diagnosed more than one year following the diagnosis of acinar adenocarcinoma, or subtype, of the prostate as stated in Rule M4 of the updated 2023 rules. Small cell carcinomas of the prostate are often diagnosed on follow-up TURP/biopsies; however, if a patient had a previous radical prostatectomy, the small cell carcinoma would be identified in a metstatic site and would still be a new prostate primary. This includes biopsy confirmed metastatic tumors only. It remains important to capture the two distinct histology types.

 Prostate N/A 2023
20160045

Neoadjuvant treatment/Grade--Prostate: How should the grade/differentiation field be coded when hormone therapy is given prior to radiation for metastatic prostate cancer? Is hormone treatment "neoadjuvant treatment" in this situation? Per NCCN guidelines, neoadjuvant hormone therapy is strongly discouraged outside of a clinical trial for localized disease. However for metastatic disease, hormone is recommended (gold standard). See discussion.

8/1/15 CT Exam showed enlarged prostate and left seminal vesicle with multiple enlarged pelvic LNs. Findings: suspicious for prostate cancer with invasion of seminal vesicle. Bone scan findings: positive bone mets in multiple sites. PSA 169.0 (elevated). Patient was started on casodex 8/12/15. A prostate biopsy was performed on 9/16/15 to confirm diagnosis, adenocarcinoma Gleason 4+5. Patient's treatment continued with radiation to bone.

For cases diagnosed prior to 2018

Code the grade/differentiation field from the biopsy for this situation. According to experts consulted, hormone therapy does not alter the grade in this case and grade should be coded based on information after hormone therapy when that is the only grade information available.

 Prostate N/A 2016
20160057

MP/H Rules/Histology--Prostate: What is the histology code for a prostate case whose histology reads “adenoca with mixed ductal and acinar variants?

Assign 8523/3.

The 2013 revision to ICD-O-3 has a new code for mixed acinar ductal carcinoma; however, this new code will not be implemented in the U.S. until 2018 or later. Page 7 of the Guidelines for ICD-O-3 Update Implementation document released by NAACCR 1/1/2014 instructs us to use 8523/3 in the meantime.

Prostate Histology 2016
20010027 Histology (Pre-2007)--Prostate: What code is used to represent the histology "adenocarcinoma, cribriform type"?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8201/3 [cribriform carcinoma]. The word "type" is a term that indicates majority of the tumor. The term "cribriform" would be a term used to determine the histology code.

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 Prostate Histology 2001