SEER Inquiry System - Search

Pt had only a bone marrow Bx done at the hospital.

Bone marrow biopsy and aspirate:

Peripheral blood showing mild relative lymphocytosis and mild relative neutropenia.

Normocellular bone marrow (50%) with mild eosinophilia. No conclusive morphologic evidence of a neoplastic process.

Flow cytometry of the marrow shows a minority abnormal T-cell population (2-3%) with phenotypic features of large granular lymphocyte leukemia cells. PCR is positive for a clonal T-cell population. The significance of these findings is unclear.

COMMENT: Flow cytometry, PCR and morphologic correlation were performed at [names removed]. The significance of a minimal, clonal, large granulocyte leukemia population absent absolute lymphocytosis is unclear. Positive results for a T-cell receptor PCR study in the setting of mild leukopenia alone is reportedly relatively common and usually regarded as nonspecific. In essence, this could be characterized as a small, monoclonal T-cell proliferation of uncertain significance associated with mild leukopenia. Appropriate follow up is suggested.

SKIN, RIGHT FOOT, EXCISION: CHRONIC SCARIFICATION WITH RESIDUAL ATYPICAL MELANOCYTES IN THE DERMIS IDENTIFIED, BUT COMPLETELY EXCISED.

Comment: The prior outside biopsy report indicates that the lesion was a melanocytic tumor of uncertain malignant potential (minimal deviation melanoma) measuring at least 2.5 mm in depth. There was apparently no in situ component. Special stains performed here are similar, with positive reactivity for Melan A and S-100. The cells are atypical, but there are reactive changes, making it impossible to accurately assess the true nature of the lesion in this biopsy. If this is a minimal deviation melanoma, it would be classified as a T3 (T3a since there is no description in the outside report of ulceration) lesion. The atypical melanocytes extend to a depth of 1.1 mm in this 2 mm deep biopsy, but are completely excised, both at the deep margin and at all of the peripheral margins (closest margin is superior, with clearance of 7 mm).

PATH FROM INITIAL BIOPSY: Diagnosis: Rt dorsal foot, shave biopsy: Melanocytic tumor of uncertain malignant potential (see comment). Tumor depth at least 2.5mm Deep margin involved. Comment: As a primary lesion, I would favor that this represents a melanocytic tumor with indeterminate biologic potential also known as minimal deviation melanoma. The lesion does extend to the deep margin and wider excision is recommended.

ROS Final Diagnosis: LSO: Ovary with an endometriotic cyst (1.2 cm) and stromal endometriosis with multifocal papillary syncytial eosinophilic, clear cell and tubal metaplasia, no evidence of carcinoma.

COMMENT: There is extensive endometriosis involving the ovarian stroma and the ovarian surface. The ovarian stroma contains multiple cystic endometrial glands and surrounding endometrial type stroma with variable amounts of hemorrhage. There are non-cystic foci of endometriosis comprised of small, irregular glandular structures within the stroma. The lining of larger cyst/cysts is involved by a single layer of cuboidal to columnar cells with markedly eosinophilic cytoplasm in areas of serous (tubal) metaplasia and papillary projections suggestive of papillary syncytial metaplasia. Within these areas there is epithelial tufting and stratification, raising the consideration of proliferative/borderline change (which we cannot entirely exclude), however, given the background of endometriosis and morphologic similarity to papillary syncytial metaplasia in the endometrium, we favor that this is a non-neoplastic reactive change. There is no evidence of carcinoma.

The final diagnosis for a soft tissue excision is, "atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma". The Comment section states, "Atypical lipomatous tumor/well differentiated liposarcoma has a significant risk for local recurrence, but no metastatic potential."

Per the 2010 SEER Manual, page 3, example 4: The pathologist makes the final decision about the behavior for a particular case. In this case, the pathologist uses both a reportable and a non-reportable term in the final diagnosis and in the comment section of the pathology report. Does the pathologist's comment impact the behavior and reportability of this tumor?