SEER Inquiry System - Search

Smoldering multiple myeloma is reportable. However, it is unclear if a diagnosis of borderline smoldering multiple myeloma should be accessioned when no further follow-up with the physician is possible. The physician stated the patient, "most likely has borderline smoldering multiple myeloma, but mostly MGUS," and further noted the definition of smoldering myeloma requires at least 10% of plasma cells involved with the neoplasm and some areas of the patient's bone marrow does meet the 10% plasma cell threshold. The physician noted the patient does not need treatment because of the favorable cytogenetics and lack of organ dysfunction.

Should the term "borderline" be ignored and the case accessioned? Or is a borderline smoldering myeloma non-reportable?

SINQ 20200057 states to use SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasms newly identified to use 8020/3 in this example for lung. The annotated histology list shows this histology followed by (C34._) for 2023 forward. An esophagus pathology states the following, "The histologic features and immunohistochemical profile are those of a SMARCA2/SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasm." Is the 8020/3 histology valid for esophagus or other sites?

The treatment regimen consisting of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) in SEER*Rx says not to code dexamethasone. I have a patient with multiple myeloma who received the KRd protocol in 2018 and the treatment regimen consisting of carfilzomib, daratumumab, and dexamethasone (KdD) (not in SEER Rx) in 2025. SEER RX says to code dexamethasone when it is given for multiple myeloma but also not to code dexamethasone when given as part of the KRd regimen (which is for multiple myeloma). I can follow the KRd instructions if that is what should take priority, but then would I code dexamethasone for the KdD regimen? KdD is not in SEER*Rx and it seems counterintuitive to code it for KdD and not for KRd.

The bone marrow was involved by lambda-restricted atypical B-cell and plasma cell populations with MYD88 mutation. Together these populations represent 10-15% of the bone marrow cellularity. While the bone marrow biopsy pathology alone did not provide a reportable diagnosis, the oncologist clinically diagnosed this as smoldering WM in the medical record.

Is a diagnosis of smoldering WM similar to a diagnosis of smoldering multiple myeloma (MM), a reportable Heme neoplasm, since smoldering neoplasms may be considered to meet the neoplasm’s threshold in the bone marrow but is otherwise asymptomatic?

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?

In the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2023, under clinical tumor size (page 115, item #12), it states: “For breast tumors, clinical size may be recorded based on the size of a non-mass enhancement (NME). NME is defined as an enhancing abnormality that is not associated with the three-dimensional volume of a mass, shape, and outlining, and it is separate from Background Parenchymal Enhancement (BPE).” This guidance does not appear to have been carried forward into the Tumor Size Summary coding instructions.

We are increasingly seeing pathologists use this terminology to describe WHO G2 meningiomas, but the histology term "Atypical meningioma" is not being used, and a more specific "Histological Classification" of other WHO Grade 2 meningiomas (i.e., chordoid or clear cell meningioma) is not given. Can the combination of meningioma, WHO Grade 2 plus the histological classification listing multiple features of an atypical meningioma be used to code morphology to 9539/1? Or is this just a meningioma, NOS 9530/0 despite the WHO Grade 2 classification?

In previous STR versions and the ICD-O-3.2, SFT/hemangiopericytoma, WHO G1 is 8815/0 and only SFT/hemangiopericytoma, WHO G2 was 8815/1. However, Table 6 (Non-Malignant CNS, Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtypes/Variants) was changed in the 2025 updates to indicate both G1 and G2 SFT/hemangiopericytoma are 8815/1.

No date range was provided for this change in the STR and the behavior of this tumor was not updated by the standard setters in other references (i.e., ICD-O-3.2). The behavior of G1 SFT/hemangiopericytoma was not updated in the 2025 ICD-O-3.2 updates. If the ICD-O-3.2 was the source of this change, should this have been documented in the 2025 NAACCR Implementation Guidelines? However, the 2025 NAACCR Implementation Guidelines indicates, "There are no ICD-O-3 changes for 2025." Is this behavior change in 2025 Solid Tumor Rules updates an error? Should the behavior of SFT/hemangiopericytoma, WHO G1 remain /0?