SEER Inquiry System - Search

Patient was diagnosed with smoldering myeloma in October 2021 and put on surveillance. In May 2024, the patient became symptomatic and started chemotherapy.

Is the date of diagnosis in 2021, with date of first treatment with chemotherapy in 2024? Or is active surveillance first course and treatment with chemotherapy as second course in 2024?

In the Heme Manual, published October 2025, the ambiguous terminology used to determine reportability for heme and lymphoid neoplasms (Case Reportability Instructions) was updated and "consistent with" was removed. However, this is an ambiguous term that is used to describe reportability (and not just histology). The term "consistent with" was previously included as a reportable ambiguous term used to report cases prior to this update.

The updated Heme Manual is clear regarding "consistent with" now being a definitive diagnosis for the purpose of coding histology. However, the Note under instruction 4 states, "Do not apply these changes to casefinding, reportability, or staging." Is "consistent with" an exception to this Note? Or should it be re-added to the ambiguous terms related to reportability?

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.

A right breast lumpectomy identified a spindle cell neoplasm with CLCN6::BRAF fusion. The diagnosis comment states, "There is limited data on spindle cell neoplasms with this specific fusion, therefore the outcome/malignant potential is unclear. The lesion is well circumscribed with low grade morphology but shows increased cellularity and mitotic activity that reaches 40 mitoses per 10 high power fields, which may be better considered as sarcoma for therapy purposes.” The physician clinically calls it a spindle cell sarcoma. Is this a reportable emerging sarcoma histology?

SEER*Rx categorizes Thyrogen as Hormones and hormonal mechanisms/Thyroid stimulating hormone. Probably not cancer directed–verify with attending MD.

Patient is diagnosed with adenocarcinoma documented by the physician as “colorectal cancer.” The medical record does not specify colon, rectosigmoid, rectum, or any specific segment of the large intestine. There is also no imaging, operative, endoscopic, or pathology documentation identifying a more precise site of origin.

Specifically, should the registrar assign:

· C18.9 — Colon NOS - (excludes rectum, NOS C20.9 and rectosigmoid junction C19.9)

· C19.9 — Rectosigmoid junction

· C20.9 — Rectum NOS

· C26.0 — Intestinal tract, NOS

· C26.9 — Gastrointestinal tract, NOS

· or another site

Patient has a CT of the abdomen and pelvis that shows a 11.6 cm mixed cystic-solid right adnexal mass most concerning for malignancy. She then has a right salpingo-oophorectomy with numerous adhesions throughout abdomen/pelvis; mass emanating from right ovary, well encapsulated, filling the entire cul-de sac pelvic cavity; left ovary not found, uterus absent.

Pathology: Right Ovary Integrity: Capsule ruptured; Tumor Site: Right ovary; Tumor Size: Greatest Dimension (Centimeters) - 7 cm; Histologic Type: Serous borderline tumor; Histologic Grade: GB, borderline tumor; Ovarian Surface Involvement: Not identified; Fallopian Tube Surface Involvement: Not identified; Implants: Not sampled; Other Tissue / Organ Involvement: Not applicable; Peritoneal / Ascitic Fluid Involvement: Malignant cells present; Chemotherapy Response Score (CRS): No known presurgical therapy; REGIONAL LYMPH NODES Regional Lymph Node Status: Not applicable (no regional lymph nodes submitted or found)

pT Category: pT1c3; pN Category: pN not assigned (no nodes submitted or found); FIGO Stage: IC3