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?

PI-RADS 4 and 5 are reportable per the SEER Manual and can be used to code the diagnosis date. 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?

The PI-RADS 4/5 statement is an ambiguous terminology diagnosis, and this is a reference of last report. Is there a time cut-off registry should consider when there is a months-long delay and no info available to account for the biopsy delay? Using the 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.

Code A280 is defined as a total removal of the ovarian tumor or removal of a single ovary (oophorectomy) WITH a hysterectomy. The unilateral removal of both the fallopian tube and ovary [(salpingo-) oophorectomy] is included in surgery codes A350-A370. However, the SEER Note under code A280 states, "Also use code A280 for current unilateral (salpingo-) oophorectomy with previous history of hysterectomy." Should this SEER Note read, "Also use code A280 for current unilateral oophorectomy with previous history of hysterectomy"?

Historically, synchronous ductal and lobular tumors have been accessioned as a single primary. These were previously covered under Rule M10, which was removed from the (STR) Manual 2026 Update. While the previous iteration of Rule M10 was problematic, the main issue related to the lack of a timing component within the rule (i.e., indicating it applied to synchronous ductal and lobular tumors).

Using the current Breast STR, when there are two (or more) simultaneous tumors which are not mixed lobular and ductal within each tumor, the applicable M Rule is Rule M13: Abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in Table 3. To apply the M Rules, a provisional histology must be assigned to EACH tumor so we cannot code each tumor as 8522 before we start applying the M Rules. These provisional histologies would be 8500 and 8520, and these are on different rows in Table 3.

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?

The STR states that p16 can be used to code HPV-associated and HPV-independent histologies for selected sites depending on diagnosis year but contains no instructions about how to interpret p16 staining results on pathology reports. These are often stated in various ways in our area, depending on the pathology lab and different pathologists. The SSDI Manual and SEER Coding and Staging Manual each have some instructions and code definitions for p16, including:

- Code 0 for p16 expression of weak intensity or limited distribution

- Code 0: p16 Negative; Nonreactive

- Code 1: p16 Positive; Diffuse, Strong reactivity

- IHC for p16 expression is a surrogate marker for HPV infection

Example: 2023 squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva, partial vulvectomy; pathology states vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia-3, p16 immunohistochemistry demonstrates block-like expression, which supports the diagnosis. The next path report states invasive squamous cell carcinoma, stain for p16 is strong and diffuse in the lesion, supporting the above diagnosis. Neither path report specifically states "HPV-related," so are p16 "expression" and "strong and diffuse" staining enough to code the histology as 8085/3 for this case?

Pathologists are increasingly using the terms "myeloid stem cell disorder" and "myeloid stem cell neoplasm" to describe reportable myeloid neoplasms. If the pathologist uses these terms and indicates the differential diagnosis includes only reportable neoplasms such as myelodysplastic syndrome, myeloproliferative neoplasm, and acute myeloid leukemia (AML), should this be accessioned as a reportable primary?

Example: The 01/2023 peripheral blood shows high grade myeloid stem cell disorder, and the differential diagnosis includes chronic myelomonocytic leukemia(CMML) and AML. The patient refused further work-up and expired several days later. No additional information is available.

Patient had a left thigh soft tissue mass excision on 7/24/24 and was diagnosed with superficial CD34 positive fibroblastic tumor. Margins were narrowly free of disease. Tumor size was 5.5 cm x 4.4 cm x 3.9 cm. The diagnosis was confirmed.