First course of treatment--Immunotherapy: Should Rituxan be coded to immunotherapy? See discussion.
Is the instruction under #4.b. on page 114 of the 2014 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual incorrect? It says to code Rituxan as chemotherapy.
Rituxan changed categories from chemotherapy to a biologic therapy/Immunotherapy agent effective with cases diagnosed January 1, 2013. See page 150 or page 164 in the 2015 SEER manual. The instruction in the 2014 SEER manual was incorrect regarding Rituxan.
First Course of Therapy/Hormone Therapy--Meningioma: Should Sandostatin be coded as treatment for a Grade 1 meningioma? Patient had surgery and was somatostatin receptor 2 (SSTR2) positive by immunohistochemistry.
Code Sandostatin (octreotide acetate) as hormonal therapy when given including:
· SSTR 2 positive meningioma (NCCN, 2025: smaller studies support the use of targeted therapy including somatostatin)
· Neuroendocrine tumor (NET) (NCCN, 2025: Tumor control: antitumor effect is supported by studies for well-differentiated G1/G2 gastro-entero-pancreatic NET. In lung/thymic NET, somatostatin analogues may be considered if metastatic or SSTR positive).
The SEER*Rx entry for Octreotide Acetate was updated as studies showed somatostatin analogs may shrink tumors or inhibit further growth.
Extent of Disease/EOD Regional Nodes--Small Intestine: For an ileal/jejunal neuroendocrine primary, how should mesenteric soft tissue deposits (less than 2 cm) be collected in Extent of Disease (EOD) Staging? See Discussion.
Example: Patient is diagnosed with grade 1 well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor of the ileum, confirmed on ileocolic resection in 2023. The final diagnosis is a 2.8 cm ileal mass, with focal lymph-vascular invasion and a single 0.6 cm tumor deposit within mesenteric fat; primary tumor completely resected with widely negative margins and 10 regional nodes negative for malignancy.
According to AJCC, mesenteric masses less than 2 cm should be stated in the pathology report as being present and collected by registrars but do not affect stage. EOD Regional Nodes has a code for large mesenteric masses greater than 2 cm only. How should we record these smaller tumor deposits if they are not supposed to affect stage?
Do not code 500 for involvement of the mesentery unless the mesentery is specifically stated to be involved (and we don't have that information). We need more information on this case to assign EOD primary tumor.
EOD/Summary Stage--Eye: How is stage coded for a patient with extranodal non-Hodgkin lymphoma involving bilateral choroids (single focus, both sites) and no lymph node involvement? Since the eyes are a paired site, is this two separate extranodal sites? If so, there are no Summary Stage or EOD tumor codes that best fit this scenario.
Assign as Stage IV as recommended by our expert hematological oncologist. This is a rare occurrence and this type of presentation does not fit the definition of intraocular extension. Stage IV is probably the best stage for this type of presentation, since there are two extranodal organs involved, even though they involve a bilateral site.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Should a 2.0 cm ulcerated mass be coded to 020 or 999 for tumor size? See discussion.
With regard to tumor size, how would SEER interpret "2.0 cm ulcerated mass"? Should this be interpreted as an ulcer, or is it a gross description of the appearance of a mass and therefore acceptable to code tumor size to it?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
If this ulcerated mass is pathologically confirmed to be malignant, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 020 [2.0 cm] based on the size of this mass in the absence of a more precise tumor size description.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can the term "filling defect" be used to code tumor size? See Description.
Site: Bladder
CT abd/pelvis: 4 cm filling defect of the bladder encasing jetstream of distal ureter. 2-3 cm lesion may be extension to bladder. KUB: 3-4 cm filling defect within bladder.
Cystoscopy: large bladder tumor with small tumor extending out of the large tumor.
OP Findings: Large tumor on right of bladder extending from bladder neck lateral and posterior
Pathology: TURB: High grade TCC, Grade III with focal lamina propria invasion.
For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:
Information on size from imaging/radiographic techniques can be used to code size when there is no more specific size information from a pathology or operative report, but it should be taken as low priority, just above a physical exam.
The term "filling defect" from a CT or KUB may be used to code tumor size for bladder in the absence of more reliable size information from path, operative or endoscopic reports.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor/First Course Treatment--Breast: How is tumor size coded when preventative tamoxifen treatment precedes breast cancer diagnosis? Can we code the tumor size from the surgical specimen? Is tamoxifen treatment here? See Description.
What is the tumor size in this situation? Patient is on the STAR trial (preventative tamoxifen for women with high risk for breast cancer). Patient develops breast cancer and has surgery.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD-Size of Primary Tumor from the surgical pathology report.
Do not code this preventative tamoxifen as first course cancer-directed treatment. This tamoxifen was part of a clinical trial intending to delay or prevent beast cancer from developing.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor/EOD-Extension--Breast: How do you code extension when the tumor in the breast is in situ and the regional axillary lymph nodes are positive? See discussion.
For example, what extension code is used for a 4.5 cm DCIS (no invasive ca found in excisional biopsy or mastectomy specimen) with mets to 01/07 LNs?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 045 [4.5 cm]. Document how the size was determined in the EOD-Extension field.
Code the EOD-Extension field to 16 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in Tumor Size (size of invasive component not stated) AND proportions of in situ and invasive not known]. By virtue of the lymph node metastasis, this must be an invasive breast carcinoma. The size of the invasive component is unknown.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home