2004 SEER Manual Errata/CS Lymph Nodes--Head & Neck: On page C-353, in the supraglottic larynx schema, there is no mention of Level IV nodes in the CS Lymph Node codes.
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.The CS Steering Committee is aware of this issue and is working to resolve it.
2004 SEER Manual Errata/CS Site Specific Factor: Does SEER plan to incorporate the "Recording Tumor Markers in Collaborative Staging System Site-Specific Factors" document that was prepared for the CS Task Force Training Materials into the 2006 SEER Manual?
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.
There are no plans at this time to incorporate the Recording Tumor Markers document into the SEER manual. This document is not part of the Collaborative Staging manual. This is a stand-alone reference endorsed by the Collaborative Staging Steering Committee for use in coding site-specific tumor markers.
2004 SEER Manual Errata/CS Tumor Size--Can the Determining Descriptive Tumor Size information, on page 6 in the SEER EOD Manual, January 1998, be used to code descriptive tumor size in Collaborative Stage?
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.
Use the instructions in the CS Manual, Appendix 1, page 62. This information will be added to the 2004 SEER manual in the next update.
Do not use the Determining Descriptive Tumor Size information from EOD for CS Tumor Size.
2004 SEER Manual Errata/Grade--Breast: Are the codes on page 94 of the SEER manual's Breast Grading Conversion Table requiring conversion of nuclear grades 1/3 and 1/2 to code 1, 2/3 to code 2, and 2/2 and 3/3 to code 3 correct or are the codes on page C-473 in the Three-Grade System (Nuclear Grade) for breast correct that requires conversion of the same examples to codes 2, 3, and 4 respectively?
On page C-473: Delete the section titled "Three-Grade System (Nuclear Grade)" and delete the table. Use the tables on pages 94 and C-472 to code grade for breast cancer. This correction will be made in the next errata.
2004 SEER Manual Errata/Grade--Colon/Bones: Is the term "pleomorphic" used to code tumor grade to 3 for selected primaries?
Delete the row containing the word "pleomorphic" from the tables on pages 93, C-219 and C-411. This correction will be included in the next set of replacement pages for the 2004 SEER manual.
2004 SEER Manual Errata/Surgery of Primary Site--Lymphoma: Item 9.a on page 178 is incorrect. Do not assign surgery code 98 to lymphoma, primary in lymph nodes. See Appendix C, page C-707 for Lymphoma (primary in lymph nodes) surgery codes.
Delete item 9. a. i. ii. and iii. on page 178 of the 2004 SEER Manual. This correction will be included in the next errata.
SEER Manual/Reportability--Ambiguous Terminology: Please clarify the reportability and relevant date ranges of the following ambiguous terminology: almost certainly, most certainly, and malignant until proven otherwise. See Discussion.
SINQ 20180104 indicates, in the absence of further info, the terms “almost certainly” and “until proven otherwise” are NOT reportable. There is no date range provided for this answer.
SINQ 20200027 indicates, in the absence of further info, the term “most certainly” IS reportable. There is no date range provided for this answer.
SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2022 indicates, in the absence of further info, the terms “until proven otherwise” and “most certainly” ARE reportable.
Essentially, we are hoping for an update of SINQ 20180104 due to 2022 reportability change. Clarification to the equivalence of “almost certainly” and “most certainly” would also be helpful.
Use the ambiguous terminology list as a guide in the absence of additional information after reviewing all available information and consulting the physician who diagnosed and/or staged the tumor.
Equivalent to "Diagnostic for" malignancy or reportable diagnosis
most certainly carcinoma
malignant until proven otherwise
NotEquivalent to "Diagnostic for" malignancy or reportable diagnosis
almost certainly ("almost" conveys uncertainty in comparison to "most" as in "most certainly")
Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Thyroid: Should a thyroid case be accessioned based only on a cytology that is consistent with papillary carcinoma? See Discussion.
Instructions in the 2007 SPCSM state that we are not to accession a case based only on a suspicious cytology. Does this rule apply only to the term "suspicious" or does it apply to all ambiguous terms? Example: FNA of thyroid nodule is consistent with papillary carcinoma.
Do not accession the case if the cytology is the only information in the medical record. The phrase "Do not accession a case based only on suspicious cytology" means that the cytology is the only information in the record. If there is other information that supports the suspicion of cancer (radiology reports, physician statements, surgery), then accession the case. The phrase "suspicious cytology" includes all of the ambiguous terms.
An official website of the United States government
Home
